BIA Declines Sua Sponte Reopening Based on Post-Order Equities

The Board of Immigration Appeals has denied an untimely motion to reopen filed nearly ten years after a final removal order. The respondent relied on equities acquired after the removal order, including marriage to a U.S. citizen, a pending spousal petition, a U.S. citizen child, and hardship to his family.

The Board concluded that the respondent did not show an exceptional situation warranting sua sponte reopening. Relying on Matter of Yadav and related precedent, the Board emphasized that equities acquired years after a final order of removal generally do not justify reopening, especially where the visa petition remains pending rather than approved. The motion to reopen was denied, and the stay request was denied as moot.

The full text of Matter of Herrera-Nunez can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1445651/dl?inline

BIA Announces Prospective DHS-First Stay Request Rule

The Board of Immigration Appeals has announced a new prospective procedural rule for stay requests filed with motions to reopen or reconsider. The Board held that a respondent with a final order of removal should first request a stay from DHS before asking the Board or an Immigration Judge (IJ) to grant a stay in connection with a motion to reopen or reconsider.

The Board explained that DHS has statutory authority to execute removal orders and is generally best positioned to consider stay requests first. The new rule applies only to stay requests filed after June 12, 2026, and does not bar the Board or IJ from granting a stay after DHS denies one. Emergency situations, including imminent removal of a detained respondent, may remain excepted.

The full text of Matter of Herrera-Nunez can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1445646/dl?inline

BIA Holds Social Distinction Generally Must Be Measured Countrywide

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the social distinction element of a particular social group generally must be measured on a countrywide basis, rather than from the perspective of a neighborhood or other limited geographic area. The case involved a Honduran applicant in withholding-only proceedings who had opposed MS-13’s attempt to recruit her daughter.

The Board vacated the grant of withholding of removal. It concluded that the Immigration Judge erred by relying on neighborhood-level recognition to find social distinction and also erred in the nexus analysis. The Board found that MS-13’s central motive was recruitment, compliance, and control, not the applicant’s family membership. The case was remanded for CAT proceedings only.

The full text of Matter of S-E-M-Z- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1444566/dl?inline

BIA Finds Health Care Fraud Conviction Is a Particularly Serious Crime

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a federal health care fraud conviction under 18 USC 1347 is a particularly serious crime. The respondent, a lawful permanent resident from Nigeria, had been convicted of health care fraud involving millions of dollars in loss and sought asylum, withholding, and CAT protection.

The Board concluded that health care fraud inherently involves deceitful conduct and can qualify as a particularly serious crime, even though it is a property offense. The Board noted that aggravated felonies are a category of crimes that are more likely to fall within the ambit of a particularly serious crime. The amount of loss, restitution, and the respondent’s role in the offense supported the particularly serious crime finding. The Board also upheld the denial of CAT protection, finding that the respondent had not shown that kidnapping or torture in Nigeria was more likely than not.

The full text of Matter of J-O-A- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1444231/dl?inline

BIA Reverses LPR Cancellation Grant Based on Criminal History

The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed a grant of cancellation of removal to a Canadian lawful permanent resident. The respondent had lived in the United States for decades and had significant family, employment, tax, and health-related equities, but also had multiple criminal convictions and recent conduct showing continued recidivism.

The Board found that the Immigration Judge gave insufficient weight to the respondent’s criminal history, including convictions for stolen property, burglary, endangering the welfare of a child, driving while ability impaired, and harassment. The Board concluded that the adverse factors outweighed the respondent’s equities, sustained DHS’s appeal, and ordered him removed to Canada.

The full text of Matter of Mills can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1443916/dl?inline

BIA Finds Prior UAC Designation and Approved SIJ Petition Do Not Create Bond Jurisdiction

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that neither a prior unaccompanied-child designation nor an approved SIJ petition gives an Immigration Judge authority to redetermine custody for a respondent who has not been admitted to the United States. The respondent had entered as a minor, later aged out of UAC status, and had an approved Form I-360 SIJ petition.

The Board followed Matter of Yajure Hurtado and held that the respondent remained an applicant for admission subject to INA 235(b)(2)(A), rather than INA 236(a). Because section 235(b)(2)(A) does not provide for Immigration Judge bond redetermination, the Board sustained DHS’s appeal, vacated the bond order, and ordered the respondent detained without bond.

The full text of Matter of N-A-G-C- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1443566/dl?inline

Eleventh Circuit Finds Florida Aggravated Assault Is a Crime of Violence

The Eleventh Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Haitian lawful permanent resident who sought reopening of removal proceedings. The petitioner argued that Florida aggravated assault should not qualify as a crime of violence because the offense could be committed with a reckless mens rea.

The Court rejected that argument, relying on the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of the aggravated assault statute and the Eleventh Circuit’s Somers decisions. The Court held that Florida aggravated assault categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 USC 16 and therefore as an aggravated felony for immigration purposes. The Court declined to resolve whether equitable tolling is available for the 30-day petition-for-review deadline because the petition failed on the merits.

The full text of Senatus v. U.S. Attorney General can be found here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202410514.pdf

Tenth Circuit Denies Equitable Tolling for Untimely Motion to Reopen

The Tenth Circuit has denied a petition for review of the BIA’s denial of an untimely motion to reopen. The Salvadoran petitioner sought reopening based on additional evidence, including the detention of his partner in El Salvador, and argued that equitable tolling should excuse the late filing.

The Court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the petitioner failed to show due diligence or extraordinary circumstances. General assertions about detention, limited access to counsel, limited English, and limited legal resources were insufficient, particularly where the petitioner had previously pursued administrative and judicial review while pro se. The Court denied the petition, while granting in forma pauperis status.

The full text of Bonilla-Espinoza v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111444458.pdf

Ninth Circuit Sanctions Attorneys for AI-Hallucinated Immigration Briefs

The Ninth Circuit has sanctioned immigration attorneys after briefing in an asylum, withholding, and CAT case included nonexistent cases, fabricated quotations, and mischaracterizations of real authority. The Court emphasized that the use of AI is not itself sanctionable, but that signing and filing briefs containing false authorities and unsupported propositions violates counsel’s obligations.

The Court imposed monetary sanctions, suspended the attorneys from Ninth Circuit practice for six months, referred the matter to the California State Bar, and required future Sethi Law Group filings to disclose whether AI was used and to certify that all citations and quotations were personally verified by the signing attorney. The Court also explained that when an attorney discovers a hallucinated citation, simply replacing it without disclosing the fabrication is insufficient.

The full text of Lnu v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf

Ninth Circuit Reinstates Stay of Removal in En Banc Asylum Case

The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, has granted a stay of removal to asylum and withholding petitioners while the merits of their petition remain pending. The case concerns the nexus element for asylum and withholding, including the role of Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland in the BIA’s analysis.

The Court concluded that the petitioners satisfied the stay standard under Nken and vacated its earlier denial of a stay. The Court also requested supplemental briefing on whether Rodriguez-Zuniga supports the BIA’s nexus ruling, whether that decision should be overruled, and whether the argument was preserved.

The full text of Rojas-Espinoza v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/09/24-7536.pdf

Seventh Circuit Denies Cancellation Petition and Sanctions Counsel for AI-Hallucinated Brief

The Seventh Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican respondent who sought non-LPR cancellation of removal. The agency denied cancellation based on a domestic violence conviction and, independently, because the respondent failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen wife.

The Court held that Illinois battery under 720 ILCS 5/12-3(a)(1) qualifies as a crime of violence and that the respondent’s mother and siblings were protected family members for purposes of the domestic violence ground. The Court also found that the hardship issue was waived and, alternatively, that substantial evidence supported the agency’s hardship determination. The Court sanctioned counsel $5,000 after the opening brief included fabricated quotations, misstated cases, and record assertions contradicted by the evidence.

The full text of Perez-Castillo v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D06-01/C:25-1988:J:Brennan:aut:T:fnOp:N:3550588:S:0

Seventh Circuit Finds Indiana Child Molesting Conviction Triggers Federal Sentencing Enhancement

The Seventh Circuit has determined that an Indiana child molesting conviction categorically relates to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor for purposes of a federal child pornography sentencing enhancement. The defendant argued that the Indiana statute was overbroad because it did not include the same offender-age or age-difference requirements found in federal definitions.

The Court rejected that argument, relying on its broad interpretation of the phrase “relating to” in the enhancement statute. The Court found that the Indiana offense targets the same general harm: sexual exploitation of young children. Although this is a criminal sentencing case, the categorical approach discussion may be useful in immigration cases involving sex-offense predicates.

The full text of United States v. Schatz can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D06-09/C:24-2252:J:Kolar:aut:T:fnOp:N:3555194:S:0

Sixth Circuit Denies Review of BIA’s Discretionary Cancellation Denial

The Sixth Circuit has denied consolidated petitions for review filed by an Albanian lawful permanent resident whose cancellation of removal grant was reversed by the BIA. The respondent had entered the United States as a child and had significant family equities, but also had an extensive criminal history.

The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary weighing of positive and negative equities. The Court rejected the argument that the BIA had engaged in impermissible fact-finding, finding instead that the Board permissibly reweighed the facts found by the Immigration Judge. The Court also denied review of the motion to reconsider, finding that the respondent had waived his removability challenge by requesting summary affirmance of the IJ’s decision below.

The full text of Dodaj v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0162p-06.pdf

Fourth Circuit Remands Salvadoran Women PSG Claim

The Fourth Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran mother and her minor daughter. The lead petitioner fled El Salvador after her father threatened her following her public accusations that he had orchestrated her mother’s murder.

The Court found that the BIA abused its discretion by refusing to review the proposed particular social group of Salvadoran women on the ground that it had been raised for the first time on appeal. The record showed that the group had been raised before, and decided by, the Immigration Judge. The Court denied the petition as to the remaining political opinion, particular social group, and CAT claims, but vacated and remanded on the Salvadoran women PSG.

The full text of Alvarado-Paz v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251119.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Finds New Jersey Child Sexual Abuse Material Offense Is a Crime of Child Abuse

The Fourth Circuit has denied in part and dismissed in part a petition for review filed by a Bangladeshi native and Canadian citizen who was found removable based on a New Jersey conviction involving child sexual abuse material. The respondent had pleaded guilty to knowingly storing or maintaining twenty-five or more items depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child using a file-sharing program that made the material available for searching or copying by other computers.

The Court held that the conviction categorically qualifies as a crime of child abuse under the INA. The Court focused on the version of the New Jersey statute in effect at the time of the criminal conduct, rather than a later amended version, and found that storing child sexual abuse material on a searchable file-sharing program creates a reasonable probability of harm to the children depicted. The Court also dismissed the challenge to the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for lack of jurisdiction.

The full text of Uddin v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241067.P.pdf

First Circuit Remands Where BIA Failed to Address Police-Persecution Theories

The First Circuit has granted petitions for review filed by a Kenyan respondent whose asylum, humanitarian asylum, and withholding claims were denied by the BIA. The Immigration Judge had found the respondent credible and found past persecution on account of family, based on abuse by his father, who was associated with the Mungiki.

The Court found that the BIA failed to address two arguments raised by the respondent: that Kenyan police would target him based on his father’s Mungiki membership, and that police would target him as an ethnic Kikuyu man during crackdowns on Mungiki. Because the BIA did not explain whether it overlooked those arguments or deemed them forfeited, the Court vacated the BIA’s orders and remanded.

The full text of Muchiri v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1340P-01A.pdf

BIA Rejects Diagnosis-Only Mental Health Particular Social Group

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the proposed particular social group of “Mexican men with Schizoaffective Disorder” is not cognizable when defined only by diagnosis. The Board found that the group lacked particularity and social distinction, because the record did not define limiting characteristics or show that Mexican society perceived people with that diagnosis as a distinct group.

The Board also found that the respondent’s fear of future persecution rested on a speculative chain of events, including loss of medication, erratic behavior, police attention, institutionalization, and harm inside an institution. The Board vacated the asylum grant, denied asylum and withholding, and remanded for CAT consideration.

The full text of Matter of L-A-D- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1442186/dl?inline

BIA Finds Three-Day Detention and Single Beating Did Not Rise to Persecution

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a Mauritanian respondent’s three-day detention, during which he was beaten once but did not suffer significant injury, did not rise to the level of persecution. DHS appealed the Immigration Judge’s grant of withholding of removal, which had been based on political opinion and tribal membership claims.

The Board also held that a government’s general deference to tribal mechanisms for resolving tribal conflict does not, without more, show that the government is unable or unwilling to protect against tribal harm. The Board sustained DHS’s appeal, vacated the withholding grant, and remanded for further consideration of future harm and CAT protection.

The full text of Matter of A-H-D- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1442386/dl?inline

BIA Reverses Cancellation Grant Based on Criminal History and Lack of Remorse

The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed a grant of cancellation of removal to a Haitian lawful permanent resident. The respondent had lived in the United States for many years and had significant favorable equities, but also had multiple criminal convictions and additional non-conviction conduct.

The Board found that the Immigration Judge did not give sufficient weight to the respondent’s criminal history, non-conviction conduct, and reluctance to accept responsibility. The Board concluded that those adverse factors outweighed the favorable equities, sustained DHS’s appeal, vacated the cancellation grant, and ordered the respondent removed to Haiti.

The full text of Matter of Germain can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1442486/dl?inline

BIA Affirms Revocation of I-130 Based on Marriage Fraud Evidence

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that good and sufficient cause existed to revoke approval of a spousal visa petition where the record contained substantial and probative evidence of marriage fraud in the beneficiary’s prior marriage. The evidence included a sworn affidavit from the prior spouse admitting that the marriage was fraudulent and a contemporaneous government memorandum corroborating that admission.

The Board dismissed the appeal and affirmed the revocation. The Board found that later exculpatory letters did not overcome the earlier contemporaneous evidence, and that a marriage certificate alone did not establish that the prior marriage was bona fide. The Board concluded that the INA 204(c) marriage fraud bar applied, despite evidence that the petitioner may have been suffering cognitive decline at the time of his accusatory statement.

The full text of Matter of Nwagwu can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1442531/dl?inline