Supreme Court Holds Fourteenth Amendment Guarantees Birthright Citizenship Regardless of Parents' Immigration Status

The Supreme Court has affirmed the unlawfulness of Executive Order 14160, which sought to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or only temporarily present in the country. The order had argued that such children are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

The Court held that the Citizenship Clause codified the common-law rule of jus soli, under which any child born on American soil and not exempted by the narrow historical exceptions for children of foreign diplomats or members of sovereign Indian tribes is a citizen at birth, regardless of the parents' domicile or immigration status. Tracing the Clause's history from English common law through its adoption as a repudiation of Dred Scott, and relying on the Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the majority rejected the government's argument that only noncitizens domiciled in the United States could transmit "sufficient allegiance" to their children.

The full text of Trump v. Barbara can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_diff_ed9g.pdf

BIA Holds Candor About Past Lies Does Not Alone Establish Credibility

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to a family from Burkina Faso, whose claim rested on the lead respondent's account of his service in the presidential security regiment. The respondent had twice denied any military service on visa applications years earlier, and the immigration judge found this indicative of a propensity for dishonesty but nonetheless deemed him credible because he was forthright in admitting he had lied.

The Board held that this reasoning was clearly erroneous, since candor about a documented history of lying to obtain immigration benefits does not, by itself, establish present credibility. The Board also found that the immigration judge did not adequately address inconsistencies undermining the respondent's explanation for the earlier falsehoods, failed to make an explicit credibility finding as to a corroborating witness who gave false testimony about a pending arrest warrant, and did not sufficiently analyze whether the documentary evidence corroborated the specific details of the claimed persecution. The case was remanded for a fuller credibility and corroboration analysis.

The full text of Matter of T-D-E- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1450076/dl?inline

BIA Holds Bond Venue Follows Detainee's Location, Not Where Removal Case Is Pending

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from an immigration judge's decision releasing a respondent on an $8,000 bond, after the respondent had already been transferred from Massachusetts to a detention facility in Texas before the bond hearing took place. The immigration judge in Massachusetts reasoned that venue for the bond request remained proper there because the respondent's removal case was still administratively pending in that court.

The Board held that bond proceedings are separate from removal proceedings, and that the controlling regulation ties bond venue to the respondent's place of detention, not to which immigration court is handling the underlying removal case. Because the respondent had already been transferred to Texas by the time he filed his second custody redetermination request, the Massachusetts immigration court was not the proper venue, and the Board vacated the bond decision without reaching the merits of dangerousness or flight risk.

The full text of Matter of Vizcaino Aybar can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1450581/dl?inline

BIA Clarifies That Forced Conscription Claims Require Nexus to a Protected Ground

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to a Russian respondent who feared forced conscription into the military amid the war against Ukraine. The immigration judge found no nexus between the respondent's fear and a protected ground, but nonetheless granted asylum on the theory that conscription into an internationally condemned military is itself persecutory.

The Board held that conscription is not a standalone, sixth protected ground under the INA and clarified that the narrow exceptions recognized in Matter of A-G-, for disproportionate punishment or conscription requiring inhuman conduct, must still be tied to one of the five statutorily protected grounds. The Board found that international condemnation of the Russian military's conduct generally is insufficient; the respondent must show that he himself would necessarily be required to engage in inhuman conduct on account of a protected ground. The case was remanded for the immigration judge to consider the respondent's separate CAT claim.

The full text of Matter of R-A-N- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1451396/dl?inline

BIA Holds Oral Motion to Pretermit Provides Sufficient Notice of Intent to Remove Under Asylum Cooperative Agreement

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained an interlocutory appeal by DHS after an immigration judge denied its motion to pretermit asylum applications filed by a Venezuelan and Colombian family, again based on the safe third country bar under the asylum cooperative agreement with Ecuador. The immigration judge had found that DHS's oral motion to pretermit did not provide adequate notice of its intent to remove the family to Ecuador and, alternatively, that the agreement did not apply absent an implementation plan.

The Board held that an oral motion to pretermit filed at a hearing is sufficient notice of DHS's intent to remove the family under the agreement, and reaffirmed that an immigration judge lacks authority to require proof of an implementation plan, proof that the third country is willing to accept the family, or an assessment of whether the third country offers full and fair procedures. The Board also held that the immigration judge erred in declining to designate Ecuador as the country of removal once DHS indicated its intent to do so. The case was remanded for an expeditious determination of the safe third country bar.

The full text of Matter of E-A-R-M- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1451996/dl?inline

BIA Holds DHS Need Not Produce Implementation Instrument to Establish Asylum Cooperative Agreement Applies

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained an interlocutory appeal by DHS after an immigration judge denied its motion to pretermit asylum applications filed by a Venezuelan family, based on the safe third country bar under the asylum cooperative agreement with Ecuador. The immigration judge had concluded that DHS failed to produce a separate implementing instrument describing the operating procedures for transfers under the agreement.

The Board held that any subsequent implementation plan contemplated by the agreement is not part of the agreement itself, is not published in the Federal Register notice establishing the ACA and is therefore not a permissible basis for an immigration judge to find the agreement inapplicable. The Board vacated the immigration judge's decision and remanded for an expeditious determination of whether the safe third country bar applies.

The full text of Matter of N-E-R-S- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1452016/dl?inline

Eleventh Circuit Affirms ACCA Enhancement, Rejects Argument That Georgia's Cocaine Definition Is Overbroad

The Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act for a defendant with four prior Georgia cocaine distribution convictions. The defendant argued, with the support of an expert chemistry declaration, that Georgia's definition of cocaine sweeps in certain "conformational isomers" not covered by the federal definition, making his state convictions categorically too broad to serve as ACCA predicates.

The Court held that the argument failed regardless of any definitional mismatch, because the Georgia Court of Appeals has held that a substance is a "controlled substance" under Georgia's own statute only if it appears on both the Georgia and federal drug schedules. As a result, any cocaine isomer excluded from the federal schedule was, by the terms of Georgia law itself, never a controlled substance there either, meaning the defendant could not have been convicted based on such a substance in the first place.

The full text of United States v. Carter can be found here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202313430.pdf

Tenth Circuit Holds Interior Detention Under Section 1225 Limited to the Border, Requires Bond Eligibility

The Tenth Circuit has reversed the denial of habeas relief for a long-term Oklahoma resident detained for over eight months without a bond hearing after the government reinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to apply to unadmitted noncitizens arrested anywhere in the country, departing from nearly thirty years of contrary practice. The petitioner, married to a lawful permanent resident and stepfather to a U.S. citizen, has no criminal history apart from a single DUI.

Joining the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits and splitting from the Fifth and Eighth, the Court held that the statutory phrase "seeking admission" independently limits § 1225(b)(2)(A) to noncitizens at the border, since a person who has already entered the country can no longer be said to have an ongoing, present request for admission pending. The Court also found that reading § 1225(b)(2)(A) to reach the interior would render portions of § 1226(c) superfluous and would raise serious constitutional concerns under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. The petitioner remains detainable under § 1226(a), which requires a bond hearing.

The full text of Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111461009.pdf

Ninth Circuit Denies Withholding of Removal to Drug Trafficker, Declines to Revisit Chevron-Era Precedent

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Gambian lawful permanent resident convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, holding that his conviction was a particularly serious crime barring withholding of removal. The petitioner separately feared persecution in The Gambia based on a fatwa allegedly issued against him after a radio interview in which he described unorthodox religious views.

The Court held that the strong presumption from Matter of Y-L- that drug trafficking aggravated felonies are particularly serious crimes also triggers the regulatory presumption that the person is a danger to the community, without requiring a separate dangerousness finding. The Court declined to overrule its own precedent deferring to that presumption under the now-abrogated Chevron framework, explaining that Loper Bright's overruling of Chevron does not itself unsettle prior decisions that relied on it, under the doctrine of statutory stare decisis.

The full text of Sarr v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/07/24-5264.pdf

Ninth Circuit Grants Reopening Where Prior Counsel Failed to Notify Clients of BIA Decision

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Honduran family after the BIA denied their motion to reopen and reissue its prior decision affirming the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The family's former attorney did not read the BIA's emailed decision for months and failed to timely advise them of the thirty-day deadline to seek judicial review, causing them to miss it entirely.

The Court held that the BIA erred in concluding it lacked authority to consider an ineffective assistance claim based on counsel's failure to advise about proceedings before a different tribunal, reaffirming that the Board has long had discretion to consider such claims. The Court also held that mailing a courtesy copy of the decision directly to the family did not rebut the presumption of prejudice from counsel's error, since it was unreasonable to expect non-English-speaking petitioners with limited education to independently decipher the filing deadline. The case was remanded for the BIA to apply the presumption of prejudice and address the merits of the ineffective assistance claim.

The full text of Menjivar-Ayala v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/09/24-4562.pdf

Eighth Circuit Denies Review Where Cancellation of Removal Arguments Were Not Exhausted

The Eighth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan woman found ineligible for cancellation of removal based on a Nebraska conviction for negligent child abuse of her stepdaughter. Before the agency, she argued only that her conviction did not match the generic federal definition of a crime of child abuse; before the court, she raised entirely new arguments, including that the agency relied on the wrong statutory provision and overlooked a petty-offense exception.

The Court held that these new arguments were unexhausted because the petitioner never raised them in her adversarial, counseled proceedings before the immigration judge and the Board. Since a reviewing court is one of review and not first view, the Court declined to consider arguments the agency never had the opportunity to address and denied the petition.

The full text of Lopez-Lopez v. Blanche can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/07/251924P.pdf

Eighth Circuit Holds Minnesota Third-Degree Murder Is a Crime of Violence Under the Guidelines

The Eighth Circuit has affirmed a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence for a felon-in-possession defendant whose prior Minnesota conviction for third-degree murder was used to enhance his Sentencing Guidelines range. The defendant argued the district court erred in treating his 2012 conviction as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).

Adopting the Third Circuit's definition of generic murder as encompassing intentional killing, killing during a dangerous felony, or killing through reckless and depraved indifference to human life, the Court held that Minnesota's third-degree murder statute, which criminalizes causing death through an act "eminently dangerous to others" showing a "depraved mind," substantially corresponds to that generic definition. Because the conviction qualified as murder under the enumerated offenses clause, the Court did not need to consider whether it also satisfied the Guidelines' separate force clause.

Although this is a criminal sentencing matter, it is likely to be persuasive when analyzing whether convictions qualify as aggravated felonies related to murder in the immigration context.

The full text of United States v. Hayden can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/07/251880P.pdf

Seventh Circuit Denies Asylum to Serbian Soccer Player Targeted by Hooligans

The Seventh Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Serbian professional soccer player who sought asylum after being beaten by a violent fan group dissatisfied with his on-field performance. The immigration judge found the petitioner's account of the attack and subsequent threats credible but concluded he had not established persecution on account of a protected ground.

The Court agreed that neither "soccer players" nor "former soccer players" constitutes a cognizable particular social group, since the harm the petitioner feared stemmed from personal, performance-related grievances rather than an immutable characteristic. The Court also found the petitioner's imputed political opinion argument undeveloped and waived. Separately, the Court expressed concern about immigration judges' growing practice of appending boilerplate legal citations in a separate document from their factual findings, though it declined to disturb the outcome here since the result would not have changed.

The full text of Andric v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D07-01/C:25-1448:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:3567073:S:0

Seventh Circuit Denies Government's Bid to Dismiss Post-Riley Petitions as Untimely

The Seventh Circuit has denied the government's motions to dismiss petitions for review filed by two noncitizens whose withholding-only proceedings remain pending, rejecting new jurisdictional arguments raised in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. Bondi. One petitioner is a Salvadoran woman whose reinstated removal order has been pending review for nearly a decade; the other is a Mexican woman convicted of theft who is contesting a final administrative removal order.

The Court held that a reinstatement order remains a final order of removal subject to judicial review, reaffirming decades of circuit precedent and rejecting the government's argument that reinstatement orders are unreviewable altogether. The Court also held that the petitions were not filed too early, since Riley itself endorsed the practice of filing placeholder petitions while withholding-only proceedings remain pending. Finally, the Court concluded that the thirty-day filing deadline is subject to equitable tolling and that both petitioners reasonably relied on then-binding circuit precedent in timing their filings, making tolling appropriate here.

The full text of E.E.V. v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D07-06/C:25-2268:J:Hamilton:aut:T:op:N:3568944:S:0

Fifth Circuit Affirms Habeas Relief for Long-Term Residents Held Without Bond Under Section 1225

The Fifth Circuit has affirmed habeas relief for three long-term undocumented residents of Texas, each detained without a bond hearing after the government reinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to mandate detention for unadmitted noncitizens found anywhere in the country's interior, not just at the border. None of the three men had a criminal history or removal order, and each has U.S. citizen children.

The Court held that even under this new statutory interpretation, the Due Process Clause requires the government to provide a bond hearing within ninety days of detention, since Congress made no individualized or categorical findings that noncitizens like the petitioners pose a danger or flight risk sufficient to justify mandatory, bondless detention.

The full text of Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/26/26-50219-CV0.pdf

Eight days later, the Fifth Circuit granted en banc rehearing in the matter, vacating the three-judge panel’s decision: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/26/26-50219-CV1.pdf

Fourth Circuit Vacates BIA's Reversal of CAT Relief for Improper De Novo Review

The Fourth Circuit, on remand from the Supreme Court, has granted a Jamaican petitioner's amended petition for review challenging the BIA's reversal of an immigration judge's grant of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The petitioner feared torture at the hands of a Jamaican drug lord who had allegedly ordered the killing of two of his cousins, with the acquiescence of local police.

Addressing threshold issues left open by the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. Bondi, the Court permitted the petitioner to amend his petition to include his original removal order, curing any jurisdictional defect. On the merits, the Court held that the BIA had improperly reweighed the evidence and substituted its own factual findings for the immigration judge's, rather than applying the deferential clear-error standard required for review of CAT determinations. The Court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded for the agency to reconsider under the correct standard.

The full text of Riley v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221609.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Remands for Proper Application of Particularly Serious Crime Test Despite Incredible Testimony

The Fourth Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran asylum applicant whose claims of persecution by a transnational cartel were found not credible by the immigration judge. The applicant was also found statutorily barred from asylum and withholding of removal based on a Virginia conviction for assault and battery against a family member, which the judge deemed a particularly serious crime.

The Court upheld the adverse credibility determination and the denial of CAT relief, agreeing that the applicant's account of his encounters with the cartel was properly found implausible and uncorroborated. However, the Court held that the immigration judge failed to apply the required two-step test for the particularly serious crime bar, evaluating the elements of the offense only after describing its underlying facts rather than before. The Court remanded for the agency to properly apply its own precedent.

The full text of Guevara Martinez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251429.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Holds Virginia Embezzlement Is Not Categorically a Crime of Fraud or Deceit

The Fourth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Honduran lawful permanent resident found removable based on a Virginia embezzlement conviction that the agency classified as an aggravated felony involving fraud or deceit.

Applying the categorical approach, the Court held that Virginia's embezzlement statute does not require any fraudulent or deceitful conduct by its elements, since a person can embezzle openly, without concealment or misrepresentation. The Court rejected the government's reliance on prior dicta suggesting embezzlement generally involves dishonesty, explaining that Virginia's statute criminalizes only the wrongful taking of property already in the defendant's possession. The Court vacated the removal order and remanded to the agency.

The full text of Ramos v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/252037.P.pdf

Second Circuit Vacates CAT Denial for Failure to Assess Torture Conditions in Salvadoran Prisons

The Second Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran former gang member found removable after a firearms conviction. The agency had denied asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, finding the petitioner not credible and unlikely to be tortured if detained upon return to El Salvador.

The Court upheld the adverse credibility finding, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence given inconsistencies in the petitioner's account of his gang involvement. However, the Court found that the agency failed to properly evaluate whether the harsh conditions in Salvadoran prisons, imposed under the government's "state of exception," amount to torture, and did not consider evidence that those conditions are intentionally maintained rather than merely the product of neglect or lack of resources. The case was remanded for further consideration of the CAT claim.

The full text of Aguilar-Villalobos v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-6899_opn.pdf

Supreme Court Upholds Metering at the Border

The Supreme Court has held that a noncitizen standing in Mexico who is prevented from crossing the border has not “arrived in the United States” for purposes of the INA’s inspection and asylum provisions. The case challenged the government’s metering policy, under which CBP limited the number of asylum seekers processed each day at U.S.-Mexico land ports of entry.

The Court concluded that “arrives in the United States” requires physical entry into the country. Because the plaintiffs had not crossed into the United States, the INA did not require inspection or allow them to apply for asylum based solely on their presence at the border in Mexico. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.

The full text of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-5_86qd.pdf