A federal appeals court has hit pause on the deportation of a 70-year-old U.S. Navy veteran and sent his case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for another look. In a March 27 ruling, the Second Circuit cleared the way for John Marcus Ramsay, a lawful permanent resident since 1971 who was deported to Jamaica in 2007 after a 1996 New York conviction for attempted sale of a narcotic drug, to remain in the United States while his claim is reopened. The court also granted a stay of removal so Ramsay can live and work in the country while the BIA weighs whether to excuse his late filing.
Second Circuit Pumps the Brakes
As reported by Tampa Free Press, the Second Circuit vacated the BIA's denial of Ramsay's motion to reopen and criticized the agency for misreading the law when it decided he had not acted with due diligence. The panel underscored that "petitioners whose claims for relief are barred by law have no rights to pursue until the law changes to entitle them to relief," a passage Tampa Free Press reproduces from the opinion. The court remanded the matter to the BIA to determine whether Ramsay is entitled to equitable tolling and kept a stay of removal in place while that review unfolds.
Minter Ruling Becomes the Hinge
Ramsay's lawyers anchored their motion to the Second Circuit's 2023 decision in United States v. Minter, as detailed on Justia, which found that New York's statutory definition of "narcotic drug" is categorically broader than the federal Controlled Substances Act. That mismatch means some decades-old state convictions may no longer count as federal drug offenses that automatically trigger removability. Advocacy groups and practitioners, including the Immigrant Defense Project, have been outlining how Minter can be used to reopen long-standing deportation orders in the Second Circuit.
Why the BIA Said No the First Time
The BIA previously denied Ramsay's motion, concluding he had not acted with due diligence and pointing to precedent such as Harbin v. Sessions (2d Cir. 2017), summarized by FindLaw, to support its view of the timeline. The appeals court, however, found that the agency "misunderstood and mischaracterized" Ramsay's legal arguments and that it was the Minter decision, and not earlier case law, that first created a viable legal basis to reopen his case. That shift in the legal landscape is what led the panel to vacate the BIA's denial and send the matter back for a fresh look.
What Comes Next
On remand, the BIA must decide whether equitable tolling excuses Ramsay's late filing and, if so, whether his case can be reopened on the merits. According to Tampa Free Press, Ramsay filed his motion to reopen within 30 days of the Minter ruling and now keeps the stay of removal while the agency reconsiders. If the BIA finds tolling appropriate, Ramsay would get a chance to litigate the original removal order and raise any defenses still available to him.
Ripple Effects Beyond One Case
Immigration lawyers say the Second Circuit's move could reverberate across hundreds of cases in which New York convictions were long treated as removable under an overbroad state drug definition. The Immigrant Defense Project has published guides and sample filings to help attorneys spot clients who might benefit from Minter-based motions to reopen. Still, experts stress that nothing about this is automatic; equitable tolling is a discretionary, fact-heavy doctrine, and the BIA will parse each petition one by one.
How the Legal Standard Works
Equitable tolling requires a showing both of reasonable diligence in seeking relief and of extraordinary circumstances that blocked a timely filing; even when the law changes, petitioners must convince the BIA that these standards are satisfied. The Executive Office for Immigration Review's practice materials lay out filing deadlines, administrative steps, and the yardsticks the BIA applies when weighing tolling requests and motions to reopen.
For Ramsay, a veteran whom authorities paroled back into the United States in 2025 because of his service, the ruling buys time and a realistic path to challenge a removal order that kept him out of the country for nearly two decades. His case will be watched closely by advocates and other New Yorkers whose older narcotics convictions may now look different under federal law.
