BIA Vacates Bond Grant Based on Speculative Eligibility for Future Relief

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a $7,500 bond grant to a Mexican respondent who overstayed a visitor visa, holding that the immigration judge improperly relied on speculative eligibility for asylum, cancellation of removal, and adjustment of status to offset flight risk.

The Board held that flight risk encompasses not just whether a respondent will appear at hearings but whether he will comply with an eventual removal order, and that an alien's incentive to prolong proceedings by filing for relief does not itself show he will comply with an adverse final order. Because the immigration judge's findings that the respondent was merely "potentially" eligible for relief were unsupported by the record, the Board vacated the bond grant and remanded for further fact-finding.

The full text of Matter of A-L-S- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1454391/dl?inline

BIA Holds Paying a Smuggler to Bring a Child to the Border Bars Good Moral Character

The Board of Immigration Appeals has dismissed the appeal of a Guatemalan respondent found ineligible for cancellation of removal after he paid a smuggler to transport his 14-year-old son from Guatemala to the U.S.-Mexico border to reunite the family, even though the son ultimately sought asylum after arrival.

The Board held that the alien-smuggling ground of inadmissibility applies to assisting an alien "to enter or to try to enter" the United States regardless of whether the smuggled person is later admitted or applies for asylum, and that the respondent's unsupported claim he intended only lawful entry did not overcome evidence that his son had no lawful basis to enter and was taken through the desert. The Board held this triggered the statutory bar to good moral character, making the respondent ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The full text of Matter of L-L-R- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1455106/dl?inline

BIA Holds Flight Risk Includes Likelihood of Success in Defending Against Removal

The Board of Immigration Appeals has dismissed a respondent's appeal from denial of bond, upholding the immigration judge's determination that he posed a flight risk that no bond amount could mitigate given evidence of inconsistent statements to USCIS and possible involvement in human rights violations in Afghanistan.

The Board held that a USCIS denial of an adjustment application was properly admitted as probative of flight risk despite hearsay objections, since immigration proceedings apply only a fundamental-fairness standard to evidence, and that potentially serious adverse evidence bearing on the respondent's prospects for relief may outweigh favorable equities like lengthy residence and family ties in assessing bond.

The full text of Matter of A-W-M-K- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1455176/dl?inline

BIA Affirms Denial of Relief Where Respondent Failed to Establish His Identity

The Board of Immigration Appeals has dismissed the appeal of a Somali asylum applicant found not credible based on inconsistencies regarding his name, nationality, clan membership, and use of a fraudulently obtained Kenyan passport.

The Board held that identity is a threshold and critical element of any asylum claim, and that the immigration judge did not clearly err in finding the respondent failed to establish his identity given multiple unresolved discrepancies in his testimony and documentary evidence. Because the same discredited testimony was the only evidence supporting the CAT claim, the Board upheld the denial of that relief as well.

The full text of Matter of I-S-M- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1455271/dl?inline

BIA Holds a Minor's Age Does Not Automatically Transform Harm Into Persecution

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of withholding of removal to a Russian respondent who was struck by police as a 17-year-old, holding that the immigration judge erred by treating the respondent's status as a minor as itself sufficient to elevate the harm to persecution.

The Board held that age is one relevant factor in the cumulative persecution analysis but does not create a categorical rule, and that the calibration warranted here was slight given the respondent was only months from turning 18. The Board also held that a pattern-or-practice theory of persecution requires an objective, not subjective, showing of a clear probability of harm, and remanded for the immigration judge to address nexus and reconsider the claim, including CAT protection, under the correct standards.

The full text of Matter of I-U-V- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1455276/dl?inline

BIA Holds Immigration Officer's Delegated Authority Properly Authenticated DHS Records

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from an order terminating proceedings after an immigration judge excluded a Form I-213 and Form I-94 offered to prove a lawful permanent resident's alienage, finding the certifying USCIS official lacked authority to authenticate the records.

The Board held that a Form G-24 certification signed by a District Records Manager properly authenticates such documents where an accompanying delegation memorandum shows the Secretary of Homeland Security's statutory custodial authority was validly conferred on that official, and remanded for the immigration judge to consider the documents in assessing removability.

The full text of Matter of Momplaisir can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1455811/dl?inline

BIA Remands Where Credibility and Internal Relocation Findings Were Insufficiently Explained

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to a Nicaraguan respondent, holding that the immigration judge's favorable credibility finding did not adequately address several apparent inconsistencies in the respondent's testimony and corroborating evidence, including conflicting accounts of a 2018 protest and unresolved questions about the availability of arrest warrants.

The Board also held that the immigration judge failed to sufficiently analyze whether the respondent's several years living elsewhere in Nicaragua without incident rebutted the presumption of future persecution through internal relocation, and remanded for the agency to reassess credibility, corroboration, and relocation under the correct framework.

The full text of Matter of H-I-A-H- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1456346/dl?inline

Eleventh Circuit Holds an EOIR Disciplinary Complaint Satisfies the Lozada Bar Complaint Requirement

The Eleventh Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan man whose motion to reopen for ineffective assistance of counsel was denied because he reported his attorney to the immigration court's own disciplinary counsel rather than to a state bar.

The Court held that nothing in Matter of Lozada limits the "appropriate disciplinary authority" requirement to state bars, and that a complaint filed with EOIR's disciplinary counsel, which now has robust sanction authority modeled on the ABA Model Rules, both strictly and substantially complies with Lozada's purposes of deterring meritless claims and policing the immigration bar. The Court joined the majority of circuits in holding that substantial compliance with Lozada is sufficient and vacated the BIA's denial of reopening.

The full text of Pasqual-Andres v. U.S. Attorney General can be found here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202212848.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds Oregon Convictions to be Violent Felonies

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed an Armed Career Criminal Act sentence, finding that the defendant's Oregon third-degree assault and strangulation convictions were violent felonies under the categorical approach and rejecting arguments that the assault statute's accomplice-liability provisions or its "extensively intertwined" doctrine swept in non-forceful conduct.

The full text of United States v. Patterson can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/27/22-30088.pdf

Ninth Circuit Overrules Precedent Treating California Domestic Violence Battery as a Crime of Violence

The Ninth Circuit has vacated a sentence enhanced under the career-offender Sentencing Guideline based on two prior convictions for inflicting corporal injury on a domestic partner under California Penal Code § 273.5, holding that the offense no longer categorically qualifies as a crime of violence.

Applying Borden v. United States and its own recent en banc decision in United States v. Gomez, the Court held that § 273.5 requires only the intent to commit the assaultive act, not intent or knowledge that force be directed at another person, and therefore does not satisfy the requirement of a mens rea greater than recklessness. The Court expressly overruled its prior precedent holding § 273.5 categorically a crime of violence as clearly irreconcilable with intervening authority and remanded for resentencing.

The full text of United States v. Lopez can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/28/24-3268.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Unadmitted Aliens in the Interior Are Not Subject to Mandatory Border Detention

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed summary judgment for a certified class of detained noncitizens in Western Washington, holding that unadmitted aliens apprehended in the interior of the United States are not subject to mandatory, bondless detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and instead remain eligible for discretionary release on bond under § 1226(a).

The Court held that the traditional, thirty-year understanding of § 1225(b)(2)(A) as limited to aliens seeking entry at the border finds greater support in the statute's text, structure, and history than the government's 2025 reinterpretation, which would render the phrase "seeking admission" superfluous and sits in tension with the Court's own precedent in Torres v. Barr. The Court joined the Second, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits in rejecting the government's position, deepening a circuit split with the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, over a dissent that would have deferred to the government's textual reading.

The full text of Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/30/25-6842.pdf

Eighth Circuit Invalidates Departure Bar on Statutory Motions to Reopen

The Eighth Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Filipino lawful permanent resident removed based on two since-vacated California convictions, holding that the regulatory "departure bar" cannot be used to deny a statutory motion to reopen filed after the noncitizen has already been removed.

Joining every other circuit to address the question, the Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) contains no geographic limitation on who may file a motion to reopen, and that the BIA's regulation barring post-departure motions conflicts with that statutory grant, especially now that Loper Bright forecloses deference to the agency's contrary interpretation. The Court remanded for the BIA to consider the merits of the motion, which is based on the vacatur of the petitioner's underlying criminal convictions, while confirming that courts still lack jurisdiction to review the separate denial of sua sponte reopening.

The full text of Lacsina v. Blanche can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/08/243373P.pdf

Sixth Circuit Adopts Probable Cause Standard for the Serious Nonpolitical Crime Bar

The Sixth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Brazilian man who shot and seriously injured his nephew during a car chase, holding as a matter of first impression that the statutory phrase "serious reasons for believing" a nonpolitical crime was committed requires no more than a finding of probable cause.

Joining the majority of circuits to address the question, the Court held that the government met its probable cause burden through the petitioner's outstanding attempted murder charge and his own admitted conduct, and that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he lacked the requisite intent or acted in justified self-defense. The Court separately upheld the denial of CAT protection, agreeing that the petitioner's connections to a criminal gang through his nephew were too limited and speculative to establish a likelihood of official acquiescence in torture.

The full text of Spindola v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0222p-06.pdf

Sixth Circuit Holds Tennessee Cocaine Convictions Are Serious Drug Offenses Under ACCA

The Sixth Circuit has affirmed an Armed Career Criminal Act sentence, rejecting the defendant's argument that his prior Tennessee cocaine convictions were categorically overbroad because the state drug schedule also lists cocaine's isomers.

The Court held that Tennessee's penalty statute, unlike the Missouri statute at issue in a case the defendant relied on, punishes cocaine specifically rather than incorporating the entire drug schedule by reference, so the conviction is not overbroad.

The full text of United States v. Starling can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0212p-06.pdf

Sixth Circuit Denies Petition Raising Fourth Amendment, Notice-to-Appear, and Nexus Challenges

The Sixth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan Maya Quiché man who sought suppression of identity evidence obtained during a police stop and withholding of removal and CAT protection based on an intrafamilial land dispute with political undertones.

The Court held that the officer's stop was supported by reasonable suspicion after he personally witnessed a littering violation, defeating any Fourth Amendment suppression claim, and that the absence of Miranda warnings does not render statements inadmissible in civil removal proceedings. The Court also held that the petitioner forfeited his challenge to a noncompliant notice to appear by raising it more than a year after Niz-Chavez was decided and long after the close of proceedings, and that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that his great uncle's threats were motivated by a personal land dispute rather than any protected ground.

The full text of Perez-Hernandez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0208p-06.pdf

Fifth Circuit Vacates Adverse Credibility Finding Based on Mistranslated Afghan Calendar Dates

The Fifth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a former Afghan government security officer who fled after the Taliban issued arrest warrants citing his work for two assassinated vice presidents, holding that the agency's adverse credibility finding rested on inconsistencies that were not actually inconsistencies at all.

The Court held that apparent discrepancies in the petitioner's employment dates were the product of an interpreter's failure to convert dates from the Afghan calendar and a mistaken premise about what he told officials during his credible fear interview, findings no reasonable factfinder could have rejected. The Court also held the agency failed to meaningfully consider photographic and documentary evidence corroborating his government service and remanded for the agency to reassess credibility without relying on the discredited inconsistencies.

The full text of Eqbal v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60504-CV0.pdf

Fourth Circuit Vacates Cancellation Denial Where Petitioner Was Never Heard on Third-Country Hardship

The Fourth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Guinean mother who was denied cancellation of removal after being granted withholding of removal to Guinea based on her fear that her daughters would face female genital mutilation there, holding that she was never given a fair opportunity to present evidence that removal to a third country would cause her daughters exceptional hardship.

The Court held that the immigration judge's order limiting briefing to the narrow legal question of whether withholding relief categorically barred cancellation left the petitioner no opportunity to develop the separate factual question of third-country hardship, and that the promised evidentiary hearing on that question never occurred. The Court vacated the BIA's order and remanded, over a dissent that would have found the procedural argument forfeited and any error harmless.

The full text of Keita v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241226.P.pdf

Second Circuit Holds Immigration Judges May Require Corroboration Without an Adverse Credibility Finding

The Second Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Yemeni man seeking deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture after his conviction for stabbing two members of a rival family, holding that the BIA properly found his challenge to the corroboration requirement forfeited and that the agency's denial of relief was supported by substantial evidence.

The Court held that an immigration judge need not make an adverse credibility finding before requiring corroboration of otherwise credible testimony, since credibility and corroboration are distinct statutory inquiries, and clarified that this same rule applies to CAT claims even though the CAT regulations do not contain the same explicit corroboration language found in the asylum and withholding statutes. The Court also held that the agency reasonably found the petitioner failed to show a likelihood of torture given the multiple speculative links in his theorized chain of harm and his ability to relocate within Yemen.

The full text of Al Saidi v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/21-6589_opn.pdf

First Circuit Grants Reopening Where BIA Misconstrued Sua Sponte Motion as Statutory

The First Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Cambodian former lawful permanent resident whose second motion to reopen was denied after a Rhode Island court vacated his 1996 drug conviction for a Rule 11 plea-colloquy defect, holding that the BIA mistakenly analyzed the motion under the statutory time-and-number bar rather than its own sua sponte reopening authority.

The Court held that the BIA's invocation of equitable tolling and the ninety-day statutory deadline revealed that it had misunderstood the petitioner's request, since sua sponte motions are not subject to any time bar and may be granted "at any time." The Court also held that the BIA erred on the merits by concluding the vacatur was not based on a procedural defect, since the state court's order expressly cited a Rule 11 violation implicating due process. The Court remanded for the BIA to exercise its sua sponte discretion under the correct legal framework.

The full text of Kim v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-2042P-01A.pdf

First Circuit Denies Asylum Where Robberies and Family Threats Lacked Nexus to a Protected Ground

The First Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran woman who was robbed by gang members on three occasions and later threatened by an MS-13-affiliated relative after she urged her sister to report him to police for sexually assaulting her niece.

The Court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that the robberies were motivated by ordinary financial gain rather than any protected characteristic, and that the relative's threats stemmed from personal revenge for the police report rather than the petitioner's family membership itself, particularly since other family members in El Salvador were left unharmed. Because the petitioner could not establish the required nexus for either asylum or withholding of removal, the Court did not need to reach her timeliness argument or her claim for humanitarian asylum.

The full text of Monzon Guzman v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1351P-01A.pdf