These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries in
New Case Law
The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed a judge’s termination of proceedings, finding that termination is not appropriate for a respondent who was not admitted or paroled to seek humanitarian parole from USCIS, and eventually, apply for status under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
The full text of Matter of Roque-Izada can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a Virginia conviction for indecent exposure is a crime involving moral turpitude. “For indecent exposure to constitute a crime involving moral turpitude, the statute prohibiting the conduct must require not only the willful exposure of private parts but also a lewd intent. Although section 18.2-387 of the Virginia Code does not include the word ‘lewd,’ it requires an ‘obscene display or exposure.’” “The Board has previously defined ‘lewd’ in the context of a lewd intent as ‘obscene or indecent.’ Thus, ‘lewd’ and ‘obscene’ have the same meaning.”
The full text of Matter of Mayorga Ipina can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has stated that while “explicit statements from the persecutors regarding the protected ground are not required, there must be some showing of a connection beyond speculation such that the alleged harm is not solely stemming from statistical likelihoods or unfortunate coincidence.” “Thus, the Immigration Judge erred in concluding that a showing of nexus does not require indicia of persecutory motive.”
The full text of Matter of C-I-R-H- & H-S-V-R can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that the 30-day petition for review deadline is not jurisdictional, but rather, a claims processing rule. In cases involving administrative removal orders (and likely also reinstatement orders), the 30 day timeliness is measured from the issuance of the ICE order, rather than from any dismissal of withholding and CAT applications by the Board of Immigration Appeals. “An order denying relief under the CAT is not a final order of removal and does not affect the validity of a previously issued order of removal or render that order non-final.”
In terms of how a non-citizen will be able to get review of the denial of withholding and CAT, the Supreme Court suggested the following: “the Government can inform aliens of the need to file a petition within 30 days after the issuance of a FARO, and it can alert the court of appeals to the pendency of a withholding-only proceeding so that review there can wait until that issue is decided. And if requests for withholding of removal in cases like Riley’s are decided expeditiously—and that was the whole point of the supposedly streamlined procedure adopted by Congress to effect the quick removal of dangerous aliens—petitions for review of removal orders should not linger long on a court of appeals docket before the withholding issue is ready for review. Finally, if Government makes a general practice of what it has done in Riley’s case, i.e., declining to press for enforcement of the 30-day filing rule, aliens who are mistaken about when a petition for review must be filed will not be hurt.”
The full text of Riley v. Bondi can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1270_new_3dq3.pdf
The Supreme Court has severely curtailed the use of universal injunctions, finding them to exceed the equitable goal of providing complete relief to the party to a lawsuit.
The full text of Trump v. CASA can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_new_5426.pdf
The Eleventh Circuit has taken up the definition of a particular social group (PSG) now that deference is no longer due to the agency. In so doing, the Court declined to create a comprehensive definition, but affirmed that a PSG would be defined by immutability, identity, visibility, homogeneity, and cohesiveness.
The full text of Mejia Ponce v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202314124.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a California conviction for shooting an inhabited dwelling is a crime involving moral turpitude. “California Penal Code section 246 requires an intentional shooting of a firearm, that is, the use of a deadly weapon, in circumstances that necessarily pose a significant risk of bodily harm to another. We hold that the BIA correctly concluded that section 246 categorically qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude.”
In addition, the Court determined that whether evidence is “new” for the purposes of a motion to reopen is a legal question over which the federals court have jurisdiction to review. The Court similarly concluded that it had jurisdiction to review whether an applicant has established a prima facie case for relief.
The decision also contained a detailed analysis regarding the petitioner’s competency and eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
The full text of Lemus-Escobar v. Bondi can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/06/16/18-73423.pdf
The Sixth Circuit has determined that the crime of child abuse ground of deportability found at 8 USC 1227a2Ei does not apply to a denaturalized individual whose conviction was entered while he was still a U.S. citizen.
The full text of Gonzalez Castillo v. Bondi can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0160p-06.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that an OPPM memo instructing judges to issue a cancellation of removal grant within 5 days of the visa number becoming available does not create any enforceable rights.
The full text of Zalaya Orellana v. Bondi can be found here:
The Second Circuit has interpreted what impact the 1983 Salvadoran Constitution had on the rights of a child born out of wedlock, and thus, that child’s ability to derive citizenship through his mother’s naturalization. “We must decide whether Lainez’s paternity was established by legitimation, as that phrase is used in former § 321, by El Salvador’s promulgation of a new constitution in 1983 granting all children equal rights before their parents. To answer that question, we first determine what it means for paternity to be established by legitimation in former § 321.” “We conclude that paternity is established by legitimation when a father’s parental rights with respect to his child are established in connection with an act of legitimation. We then conclude that El Salvador’s constitutional reform granting children equal rights and prohibiting discrimination did not establish Lainez’s father’s parental rights, and so did not establish Lainez’s paternity by legitimation. Therefore, Lainez was free to derive citizenship from his mother’s naturalization and is not removable.”
“First, paternity is not established automatically by the enactment of a 12 general legitimation law. Second, former § 321’s protections for the rights of noncitizen parents depend, naturally, on the establishment that a particular person has parental rights with respect to the child.” “The difference between establishment of paternity for purposes of former § 321, on the one hand, and mere legitimation, on the other, is that establishing paternity means establishing who has parental rights with respect to a given child.”
“Lainez’s father did not take any relevant actions to establish his paternity by legitimation under El Salvador law. It is undisputed that Lainez’s parents did not marry before or after his birth. At oral argument, the government conceded that his father’s name appearing on his birth certificate does not actually matter in this case, and we agree.” “ While there is no dispute about who Lainez’s father is, that does not mean he obtained parental rights. Because that is the relevant inquiry under former § 321, we conclude Lainez could and did derive citizenship from his mother’s naturalization.”
The full text of Lainez v. Bondi can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c8056d4d-b9a8-4a63-9693-0713e966764e/4/doc/21-6386_complete_opn.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has found that a grant of withholding of removal that is pending appellate review by the Board does not justify release on bond when there are significant adverse factors present. In this case, those factors included “the respondent entered the United States unlawfully on September 6, 2023, does not have work history in this country, was arrested for petty theft on October 22, 2023, removed her court ordered GPS ankle monitor, and assisted her son in fleeing from law enforcement after shooting at a police officer.”
The full text of Matter of E-Y-F-G- can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the basis for granting administrative closure must be related to achieving some foreseeable resolution to the ongoing proceedings within a reasonably short period of time.
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, including whether there is a persuasive reason for removal proceedings to be resolved on the merits, we conclude that administrative closure is not warranted. The respondent has an application for asylum and related relief ripe for adjudication before the Immigration Judge. The resolution of the respondent’s application for asylum and related relief, and any direct appeal taken thereof, would conclude removal proceedings before us. Moreover, TPS is a collateral benefit that does not impact the outcome of removal proceedings. Although USCIS maintains initial jurisdiction over the respondent’s application for TPS, the respondent would remain eligible for TPS even with a final order of removal.” The Board also took special note that the respondent in this matter was detained.
The full text of Matter of B-N--K- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1402756/dl?inline
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the Board of Immigration Appeals’ power to consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on conduct of counsel that occurred after a final order of removal had been entered includes the power to review deficient performance that occurs before a different tribunal, including the Ninth Circuit. “Given this longstanding precedent, the Board acted arbitrarily when it denied Li’s motion to reopen on the sole basis that Li’s claimed ineffective assistance occurred before a ‘different tribunal.’”
“If the Board believed it had no discretion to review ineffective assistance claims based on conduct before a different tribunal, then the agency abused its discretion. If the Board instead believed that Li should have sought relief in the Ninth Circuit after the petition had been dismissed, it does not explain how that would comport with its own procedural requirements under Matter of Lozada, which insists upon such issues being raised before the Board in the first instance. Finally, if the Board harbored concerns grounded in the separation-of-powers doctrine—a topic it did not raise in its decision—it does not explain how those concerns manifest in Li’s case and not any of the cases that came before it. The dissent accuses us of requiring the Board to invoke the magic words ‘separation-of-powers’ in its decision. But it is not merely the Board’s failure to mention the doctrine; it is its failure to provide a reasoned explanation why an attorney’s failure to file an opening brief before the Ninth Circuit should implicate separation-of-powers concerns when the exact same thing happened in Lata and we explained that the petitioner should have first pursued relief with the Board.”
The full text of Li v. Bondi can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/06/10/18-70278.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that when threats and harm to an asylum applicant and her family restrict the applicant’s ability to practice her religion, that restriction is a form of harm that must be considered when determining if she has experienced past persecution.
“De Souza Silva experienced a death threat explicitly linked to animus against Candomblé practitioners. The masked man specifically invoked the murder of Simone’s father, who had been murdered because of his religious practice. De Souza Silva additionally experienced other harm, including escalating vandalism paired with menacing and pejorative messages.”
“Ultimately, in evaluating whether the cumulative effect of the harms and abuses De Souza Silva experienced rose to the level of persecution, the agency was required to consider the effect of her experiences on her ability to practice her religion freely. The agency failed to do so, never mentioning her religious practice as a consideration nor citing any of the related evidence in the record about the issue.”
The full text of De Souza Silva v. Bondi can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/06/11/24-834.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review USCIS’s policy of withholding adjudication of adjustment of status applications when there is a visa retrogression. “Here, USCIS is not only granted discretion with respect to the ultimate decision on whether to grant adjustment of status. USCIS also has the discretion to “prescribe” the regulations that guide its exercise of the discretionary authority.”
The full text of Kale v. Alfonso-Royals can be found here:
The Fourth Circuit has determined that a federal conviction for inducing a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity is a sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felony and a crime of child abuse. In so holding, the court determined that “Esquivel-Quintana’s holding is narrow, applying only to a strict liability statute, and that it does not inform the broader question of whether an offense with a criminal mens rea constitutes sexual abuse of a minor.”
The full text of Hsieh v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241013.P.pdf
The Second Circuit has determined that the Department of State violated a U.S. citizen’s due process rights when it confiscated and revoked his Consular Report of Birth Abroad and would not issue him a temporary passport to return to the United States to attend an administrative hearing contesting the revocation. The court also expressed skepticism that the only proof of fraud DOS produced was a written “confession” entirely in English signed by a person who is illiterate in English.
The full text of Hadwan v. Department of State can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that it is appropriate to consider statements made during a border interview under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard for credibility.
The full text of Singh v. Bondi can be found here:
https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ee5a9581-65e6-4df0-8d62-453b78c084f2/10/doc/22-6077_complete_opn.pdf
The Second Circuit has determined that it will review the agency’s hardship determination as it relates to cancellation of removal for nonlawful permanent residents under a clear error standard. Under the deferential clear-error standard of review, “a finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. ‘Clear error’ review generally has been recognized as being less deferential to the factfinder than ‘substantial evidence’ review, and though the difference between the two standards is, on the surface, subtle, traditionally, clear error review has been considered somewhat stricter (i.e., allowing somewhat closer judicial review) than the substantial evidence standard.“
The full text of Toalambo Yanez v. Bondi can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that “[t]he lack of time and place information on the notice to appear does not render untrue or incorrect a respondent’s admission to the factual allegations or invalidate the charges of removability in the notice to appear and therefore is not a proper basis for granting a respondent’s motion to withdraw pleadings.”
The full text of Matter of Lopez-Ticas can be found here:
