BIA Imposes Reciprocal Discipline on Attorney Suspended by the Ninth Circuit Over AI-Generated Brief Errors

In a precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals has imposed a six-month reciprocal suspension on an attorney who had already been suspended by the Ninth Circuit after filing a brief containing errors traced to generative AI use. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a) and (b), a certified record of a federal court suspension triggers immediate suspension before the Board and creates a rebuttable presumption that equivalent discipline is warranted, which the attorney can overcome only with clear and convincing evidence of a due process violation, an "infirmity of proof," or a "grave injustice."

The Board rejected each of the attorney's arguments for avoiding reciprocal discipline. It held that the Ninth Circuit had properly inferred, from circumstantial evidence including an implausible explanation and a pattern of similar conduct, that the attorney knew his brief contained fabricated or erroneous material. And distinguishing hardship from injustice under Matter of Kronegold, the Board emphasized that professional conduct standards do not bend based on the tools an attorney uses to prepare a filing — discipline for AI-related errors, including citations to nonexistent cases, is ordinary professional regulation rather than an outlier result.

The full text of Matter of Mike Singh Sethi can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463666/dl?inline

BIA Holds It Loses Jurisdiction Upon Remand and a New Hearing Is Not Required Unless the Remand Order Says So

The Board of Immigration Appeals, in a precedent decision clarifying Matter of Patel, has held that it does not retain jurisdiction over a case after remanding the record to an Immigration Court, and that an Immigration Judge is not required to hold a new hearing on remand unless the Board's order expressly directs one. Where a remand is unqualified, jurisdiction returns entirely to the Immigration Judge, who may conduct whatever further proceedings the remand order calls for, consistent with the INA and the regulations.

Applying that rule, the Board found no error in the Immigration Judge's decision to issue a new ruling denying withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture without convening an additional hearing, since the Board's remand order did not require one and the respondent had already received a full hearing before the case went up on appeal. The Board concluded that reassessing the existing record without reopening the evidentiary record did not violate due process or exceed the scope of the remand.

The full text of Matter of C-M-H-H- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463836/dl?inline

BIA Vacates Bond Based on Undisclosed Prior Asylum Grant Obtained Under a Different Identity

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a $12,000 bond grant, holding that the respondent failed to meet his burden of showing he is not a flight risk. The Board found it highly significant that the respondent had omitted from his asylum application the fact that he had passed through Greece and previously obtained asylum there under a different identity, noting that the omission implicated his credibility, his true identity, potential statutory bars to relief, and his willingness to commit immigration fraud.

The Board also noted that the Immigration Judge had already denied the respondent's asylum application, and that the fraud revelations made his prospects on appeal "remote." While acknowledging favorable factors such as steady employment, a fixed address, and the absence of a criminal record, the Board concluded these could not overcome serious doubts about his trustworthiness and likelihood of complying with a removal order and vacated the bond.

The full text of Matter of Y-M-B- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463051/dl?inline

BIA Denies Cancellation of Removal to Longtime Resident, Citing False Testimony About Grandson's Death

The Board of Immigration Appeals has affirmed the denial of cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a) to a lawful permanent resident of fifty years who was found removable based on a child abuse conviction, upholding the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility finding and discretionary denial of relief. The respondent testified that her grandson died from a ruptured appendix and rib fractures caused by CPR, but the Board found this account materially inconsistent with police reports, medical records, and news coverage establishing that the child died of acute peritonitis caused by blunt force trauma and drug exposure, with rib fractures at various stages of healing.

Applying de novo discretionary review under Matter of C-V-T-, the Board weighed the respondent's substantial positive equities — her decades of residency, thirteen U.S. citizen children, and roughly twenty-seven grandchildren — against her involvement in money laundering and alien smuggling, her child abuse conviction, three substantiated child welfare investigations, and what the Board called her "devious and disingenuous" efforts to minimize her responsibility for her grandson's death. Citing Matter of Richards and Matter of Burbano, the Board held that a lack of candor of this kind is a significant adverse discretionary factor that outweighed her favorable equities and dismissed the appeal.

The full text of Matter of Leticia Cornejo-Aguilar can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463461/dl?inline

BIA Holds Bad Advice From a Non-Lawyer Does Not Excuse a Missed Hearing

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained a DHS appeal and reversed an Immigration Judge's sua sponte rescission of an in absentia removal order, holding that a respondent's claim that a non-attorney misled him about the need to appear at his hearing did not amount to the "exceptional circumstances" required to reopen. The respondent, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, argued he reasonably relied on the individual's assurances, but the Board noted that both of the respondent's own continuance motions listed him as proceeding pro se and bore his signature.

Consistent with Matter of Z-R-C-N-, the Board reiterated that bad advice from a non-lawyer does not excuse a failure to appear and emphasized that sua sponte authority to reopen a case must be reserved for truly exceptional situations, not invoked routinely. The motion to reopen was denied and the in absentia removal order reinstated.

The full text of Matter of K-K-U-J- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1462356/dl?inline

BIA Overrules Decades-Old Precedent, Holds an Admission to Drug Use Need Not Track the Statute's Precise Elements

In a significant precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals has overruled Matter of K- (1957) and Matter of J- (1945), holding that a non-citizen's admission to having possessed and used cocaine renders him inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) even though he was never advised of the precise statutory definition or essential elements of the offense before admitting to the conduct.

The Board reasoned that the controlled substance inadmissibility ground requires only that the respondent voluntarily admit to conduct that constitutes the essential elements of the offense and receive a fair hearing — nothing in the statute's plain language requires that he first be instructed on the formal legal definition of the crime. Requiring that additional procedural step, the Board held, "exceeds what is required under the plain language of the statute," and the appeal was dismissed.

The full text of Matter of Tirso Mendez Maldonado can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1462126/dl?inline

BIA Rejects Due Process Challenge Premised on Claims of Institutional Bias and Board Reorganization

The Board of Immigration Appeals has denied a motion to reopen built on allegations that the respondent's hearing was tainted by improper influence over the Immigration Judge, expedited handling, and systemic bias stemming from the Board's recent reorganization. The Board called the claims "conspiracy theories and innuendo" unsupported by credible evidence, rejecting a newspaper article and supporting affidavits as insufficient because the article consisted largely of anonymously-sourced opinion and none of the affiants had firsthand knowledge of the Board's internal deliberations.

The Board held that expedited case processing does not itself suggest prejudgment, that recusals from decisions about whether to publish a ruling as precedent have no bearing on the outcome of the underlying case, and that the reduction of the Board from 28 to 15 members — which nearly tripled the annual output of published decisions — reflects efficiency rather than compromised independence. Citing Liteky v. United States, the Board reiterated that adverse rulings alone, including an unfavorable venue determination or a discretionary denial of a statutory waiver, do not establish bias.

The full text of Matter of M-K- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1462911/dl?inline

BIA Holds Immigration Judges May Pretermit Asylum Applications Without a DHS Motion

The Board of Immigration Appeals, in a precedent decision, has held that an Immigration Judge may pretermit — that is, deny without a hearing — an asylum or withholding of removal application that fails to establish a prima facie case for relief, even absent a motion from DHS. The Board reasoned that because applicants bear the burden of establishing eligibility under INA § 240(c)(4), a hearing is unnecessary where it is apparent at the outset that the evidence submitted does not meet the statutory standard, and that Immigration Judges retain broad discretion over how to manage their proceedings.

Applying that standard here, the Board found the respondent had neither alleged past persecution nor presented evidence of a future risk of persecution on account of a protected ground and affirmed the pretermission of the application without a hearing.

The full text of Matter of G-R-B- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463256/dl?inline

BIA Orders Detention Without Bond Based on Pattern of DUI Arrests and a Domestic Assault Charge

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from an Immigration Judge's grant of bond, holding that the respondent failed to carry his burden under INA § 236(a) of showing he is not a danger to persons or property. The Board gave "substantial weight" to the respondent's pattern of alcohol-related driving arrests in 2021 and 2022, along with a more recent May 2026 arrest for domestic assault, and reiterated under Matter of Siniauskas that driving under the influence is a significant adverse consideration in custody determinations.

The Board acknowledged the respondent's family and community ties but held that, consistent with Matter of Adeniji, such equities generally do not mitigate a finding of dangerousness once a pattern of serious criminal conduct has been established. It vacated the Immigration Judge's bond decision and ordered the respondent detained without bond.

The full text of Matter of Roberto Morales Cuxun can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463806/dl?inline

Ninth Circuit Holds Thuraissigiam Does Not Strip Due Process Protections From Asylum Seekers Detained Far From the Border

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court's denial of the government's motion to dismiss a long-running class action brought by asylum seekers subject to mandatory detention under the expedited removal statute, holding on interlocutory appeal that the court has jurisdiction over the class's constitutional challenge and that Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam does not eliminate their due process rights. The certified class consists of noncitizens who entered without inspection, were placed in expedited removal, and established credible fear of persecution or torture, but who remain subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) without any opportunity for a bond hearing — a population DHS substantially expanded in January 2025 by designating virtually any inadmissible noncitizen apprehended anywhere in the country within two years of entry as subject to expedited removal.

On jurisdiction, the panel held that none of the four subsections of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A) barred the district court from hearing the case, since the class challenged the constitutionality of the detention statute itself rather than any individual removal order, determination, or application of the statute to a particular case. On the merits of appealability, the court rejected the government's argument that Thuraissigiam forecloses the claim entirely. Writing for the majority, Judge Berzon distinguished Thuraissigiam, which involved a noncitizen apprehended 25 yards from the border moments after crossing, as limited to individuals at the "threshold of initial entry." The class here includes people apprehended tens or hundreds of miles from the border, months or up to two years after entry — well outside that narrow category. The court reaffirmed the longstanding rule that the Due Process Clause protects all persons in the United States regardless of immigration status and traced the distinction between the government's broad power over admission decisions and the much more constrained, centuries-old limits on its power to detain. Judge Friedland concurred in the judgment on the narrower ground that the class definition alone placed its members outside Thuraissigiam's scope, without reaching the admission-versus-detention analysis.

The full text of Padilla v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/21/24-2801.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds BIA's Failure to Consider Dispositive Evidence Is Reviewable Legal Error

The Ninth Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Mexican man denied reinstatement of voluntary departure, holding that the BIA committed reviewable legal error by dismissing his appeal on the ground that the record "does not reflect" proof he posted the required voluntary departure bond, even though a DHS receipt confirming payment was already in the administrative record.

The Court held that although the jurisdiction-stripping provisions governing discretionary relief generally bar review of purely factual determinations under Patel v. Garland, those provisions contain an exception for legal questions, and an agency's complete failure to consider dispositive evidence that was squarely in the record is a legal error rather than a mere factual misjudgment. The Court distinguished Patel as involving a genuine credibility or intent determination, whereas here neither party disputed that the bond was paid or that the receipt was in the file, so no factual reweighing was required to identify the BIA's oversight. The Court remanded for the BIA to consider the receipt and reassess reinstatement of voluntary departure, denying the remainder of the petition as to cancellation of removal. A partial dissent argued the BIA's error was factual, not legal, and that treating an obvious factual mistake as a legal error effectively guts Patel's jurisdictional bar.

The full text of Perez-Garcia v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/25/24-1092.pdf

Second Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc, Reaffirms Section 1226 Governs Bond Eligibility for Long-Present Noncitizens

The Second Circuit has denied rehearing en banc in a habeas case challenging the bondless detention of a noncitizen who entered the United States unlawfully more than two decades ago, leaving in place the panel's holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not § 1225, governs his detention and entitles him to a bond hearing. The order drew a concurrence and a dissent from denial, underscoring the live circuit split over this question.  The panel majority had held that § 1225(b)(2)(A)'s mandatory, bondless detention provision applies only to noncitizens actively "seeking admission" at the border, and that someone who has already entered the country unlawfully and remained for years is not seeking admission in that sense, so he falls instead under § 1226(a)'s discretionary detention scheme.

The full text of Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-3141_complete%20en%20banc_opn.pdf

First Circuit Largely Upholds Nationwide Class Relief Requiring Notice Before Third-Country Removals

The First Circuit has largely affirmed a final judgment obtained by a certified class of noncitizens with final removal orders, holding that DHS's policy of removing class members to "third countries" not named in their removal orders or prior proceedings violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it fails to provide effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise fear-of-persecution and fear-of-torture claims regarding the new destination. The class had challenged DHS guidance that permitted removal to a third country with no notice at all where the State Department deemed the receiving country's diplomatic assurances credible, and with as little as twenty-four hours' notice otherwise.

The Court held that the statutory and regulatory scheme governing withholding of removal and CAT protection implicitly requires effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before any third-country removal, reasoning that the right to avoid removal to a country where one fears persecution or torture means little without advance notice of the actual destination, and invoking the canon of constitutional avoidance to reach that reading. The Court rejected each of DHS's jurisdictional arguments, holding that neither § 1252(g)'s bar on review of decisions to "execute removal orders" nor § 1252(b)(9)'s claim-channeling provision applied, since the class was not challenging its removability or the execution of its removal orders but rather DHS's failure to follow required procedures when redirecting removal to an unnamed third country. The Court also held that its own precedent in Brito v. Garland forecloses any argument that § 1252(f)(1)'s bar on class-wide injunctions extends to declaratory relief or APA vacatur, and it upheld the district court's Rule 23(b)(2) class certification. The Court did, however, vacate the portion of the judgment requiring DHS to first attempt removal to a class member's designated country or country of citizenship before resorting to a third country, holding that none of the four named plaintiffs had standing to raise that particular "sequencing" claim.

The full text of D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/26-1212P-01A.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Jurisdiction-Stripping Bar for CNMI Long-Term Resident Status Extends to USCIS Denials

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, of a challenge brought by a long-term Northern Mariana Islands resident to USCIS's denial of his application for NM-1 status, a special immigration status created for CNMI residents left without lawful status after federal immigration law was extended to the territory. The petitioner argued that the statute's jurisdiction-stripping provision, which bars review of "any decision of the Secretary of Homeland Security" on an NM-1 application, applies only to decisions made by the Secretary personally, not to USCIS acting under delegated authority.

The Court rejected that argument, holding that because the petitioner conceded the Secretary validly delegated his NM-1 adjudicatory authority to USCIS, a decision by USCIS is functionally a decision of the Secretary for purposes of both the statute's grant of adjudicatory authority and its bar on judicial review. The Court found this reading reinforced by the Supreme Court's and every other circuit's consistent, if largely unstated, assumption that similarly worded jurisdiction-stripping provisions naming only an agency head extend to decisions made by that official's delegates, and held that because the statutory text was unambiguous, the general presumption favoring judicial review of agency action did not apply.

The full text of Barman v. United States can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/14/24-464.pdf

BIA Reverses CAT Grant Where Respondent Failed to Corroborate Claimed Sexual Orientation

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of CAT deferral to a Guinean respondent whose asylum status had been terminated based on a Minnesota conviction for criminal sexual conduct that the immigration judge found to be a particularly serious crime, holding that the respondent's claimed sexual orientation, the basis for his CAT claim, was not credible and was inadequately corroborated.

The Board held that the respondent's description of only one same-sex relationship, with a former cellmate and no further detail, his otherwise exclusively opposite-sex relationships including the one underlying his criminal conviction, and his shifting self-descriptions as homosexual, bisexual, and gay undermined his claim, and that he provided no independent letters, affidavits, or other corroboration despite years of residence in the United States. The Board also rejected the respondent's separate procedural challenges, including his argument that the immigration judge should have qualified his expert witness on additional subjects, finding no prejudice from any of the claimed errors, and ordered him removed to Guinea.

The full text of Matter of S-K-E- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1460421/dl?inline

BIA Holds Street Racing and Resisting Arrest Established Danger to the Community in Bond Proceedings

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a $15,000 bond grant to a Kyrgyz respondent, holding that his recent arrests for driving on a license suspended for street racing, resisting arrest, and possessing contraband in jail demonstrated he had not met his burden of proving he is not a danger to the community.

The Board held that the immigration judge's finding that the respondent would not reoffend because he had "a lot to lose" was speculative and contradicted by his own recent conduct, and that a state court's decision to release him on his own recognizance did not bind the immigration judge's separate dangerousness assessment. Because a finding of dangerousness alone is dispositive of bond eligibility, the Board ordered the respondent detained without bond without reaching the question of flight risk.

The full text of Matter of Kamalov can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1460501/dl?inline

BIA Holds Redacted Inter-Proceeding Declarations May Be Used Without Cross-Examination to Challenge Credibility

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to an Indian political-opinion applicant, holding that the immigration judge clearly erred by discounting twelve redacted declarations from unrelated asylum cases that DHS submitted to show suspicious, boilerplate-style similarities to the respondent's own declaration.

The Board held that redacting personally identifying information from inter-proceeding declarations sufficiently protects the other applicants' privacy under the asylum confidentiality regulation and clarified that the procedural safeguards for inter-proceeding comparisons do not require the other declarants to be made available for cross-examination, since the declarations are offered only to show textual similarities, not for the truth of their contents. The Board also held that the harm the respondent described, two assaults requiring only minor treatment, did not rise to the level of persecution as a matter of law, and remanded for the judge to reassess credibility using the correct word-and-phrase comparison framework and to address withholding and CAT relief in the first instance.

The full text of Matter of V-S-A- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1460841/dl?inline

BIA Overrules Precedent, Holds Aggravated Felons Are Inadmissible as

The Board of Immigration Appeals has dismissed the appeal of a Nicaraguan woman convicted of federal identity theft and access-device fraud offenses, holding for the first time that any noncitizen with an aggravated felony conviction is inadmissible as a person "permanently ineligible to citizenship," since an aggravated felony conviction forever bars the good moral character required for naturalization.

The Board expressly overruled its decades-old precedent in Matter of Kanga, which had limited that inadmissibility ground to military draft evaders, holding that decision failed to apply the plain, forward-looking text of the INA's definition of "ineligible to citizenship." Because this represents a significant and reasonably unanticipated change in the law, the Board applied its new holding only prospectively, to aggravated felony convictions entered after the date of the decision, and on the merits affirmed the denial of a § 212(h) waiver, adjustment of status, and CAT protection to the respondent based on her extensive fraud-related criminal history.

The full text of Matter of A-V-O- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1461651/dl?inline

Ninth Circuit Holds the Persecutor Bar Contains No Implied Duress Defense

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran man denied special rule cancellation of removal after evidence showed he had served in a Salvadoran army battalion linked to civil war-era atrocities, holding that the statutory persecutor bar contains no implied defense for those who assisted in persecution under duress.

Giving only limited weight to the Attorney General's own interpretation given its inconsistent history on the question, the Court nonetheless independently concluded that the ordinary meanings of "assisted" and "otherwise participated" encompass involuntary conduct, and that Congress's explicit use of "voluntarily" in numerous neighboring INA provisions, but not in the persecutor bar, confirms the omission was intentional. The Court held that international refugee law materials cited by the petitioner and amici showed a duress defense is a possible and sensible reading, but not one Congress actually wrote into the statute, and it denied the petition based on the immigration judge's unchallenged finding that the petitioner was not credible.

The full text of Perez-Castillo v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/08/21-70087.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Parole for Waitlisted U-Visa Petitioners Is Discretionary, Not Mandatory

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed in large part the dismissal of claims brought by more than 150 U-visa petitioners against USCIS, holding that the regulation governing the U-visa waiting list gives the agency discretion, not a mandatory duty, to grant advance parole to domestic petitioners who have already received deferred action.  However, the Court held the district court erred in rejecting, without full consideration, the alternative injury theories of petitioners whose petitions had merely been deemed "bona fide" rather than placed on the formal waiting list, and remanded for further proceedings on whether those petitioners have standing to challenge delays in obtaining a full waitlist determination.

The full text of U Visa Appellants v. Director, USCIS can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/14/24-6824.pdf