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

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

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

Ninth Circuit Holds Age-Based Social Groups Are Immutable as a Matter of Law

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Mexican mother and her three children who fled after armed men threatened to force the children into drug trafficking and sex trafficking, holding that the BIA erred in finding her proposed social group of "mothers of adolescent children living in Mexico" non-cognizable purely because age changes over time.

The Court held that age-based social groups are immutable as a matter of law, since an applicant cannot alter her age, or a child's age, to escape persecution, and that the relevant age is the applicant's age at the time persecution occurred or is feared. The Court clarified that age-based groups may still fail for lack of particularity or social distinction, but reversed the BIA's categorical rule to the contrary. The Court also held that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review, clear error instead of de novo, to the nexus determination for the petitioner's separate social group of single women targeted by criminal groups, and remanded for the agency to reconsider both issues under the correct standards.

The full text of Garcia Demetrio v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/20/25-991.pdf

Fourth Circuit Denies Asylum Where Gang Extorted Petitioner as Part of Generalized Recruitment

The Fourth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan man who fled after MS-13 members assaulted him and demanded extortion payments, threatening to recruit him because he could not pay. He sought asylum based on membership in social groups of Guatemalan youths and youths who resist gang recruitment.

The Court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that the gang targeted the petitioner for money and to grow its ranks generally, not because of his age or his resistance to recruitment specifically, since his own testimony described an indiscriminate extortion scheme applied to everyone in the gang's territory. The Court explained that a general country-conditions report on gang recruitment of youth could not compel a contrary, petitioner-specific finding of nexus, and separately upheld the denial of CAT protection based on evidence that Guatemalan police make genuine efforts to combat gang violence.

The full text of Flores-Turcios v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241338.P.pdf

First Circuit Grants Petition Where Record Compelled Finding of Indicia of Incompetency

The First Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Nepalese asylum applicant whose immigration judge denied relief after finding him not credible, without ever addressing whether he showed signs of incompetency requiring further inquiry. The applicant had suffered a head injury from a political assault years earlier and, during his hearing, gave confused answers that led the judge to order a mental health evaluation.

The evaluation found that the applicant's ability to assist his own attorney was compromised by attention and concentration deficits, but the judge treated the report only as an unsuccessful attempt to rehabilitate credibility and never made any competency finding. The Court held that the combination of the applicant's head trauma and the psychologist's report compelled a finding of indicia of incompetency under Matter of M-A-M-, triggering the immigration judge's affirmative duty to inquire further, regardless of the applicant's positive demeanor or representation by counsel. The Court remanded for the agency to conduct the required competency inquiry in the first instance.

The full text of Rana v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1862P-01A.pdf

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 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

Attorney General Precludes Stipulations to Elements of Asylum

The Attorney General has directed the Board of Immigration Appeals to review de novo if the Immigration Judge’s factual findings establish all of the elements of an asylum claim, and to not accept the parties’ stipulation that certain elements of the claim have been established.

The full text of Matter of A-C-A-A- can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1319866/download

Fourth Circuit Construes Changed Circumstances for One-Year Filing Deadline

The Fourth Circuit has determined that new facts that provide additional support for a pre-existing asylum claim can constitute a changed circumstance.  An applicant need not demonstrate that he did not have a valid asylum claim prior to the changed circumstance.

The full text of Romero Zambrano v. Sessions can be found here:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/162131.P.pdf

BIA Determines that IJ may not Terminate Proceedings to Allow Arriving Alien to Apply for Asylum before DHS

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge does not have authority to terminate removal proceedings to give an arriving alien an opportunity to present an asylum claim to the Department of Homeland Security in the first instance.  The Department of Homeland Security has the exclusive discretion whether to subject such individuals to the credible fear process or whether to initiate removal proceedings, and once a charging document has been filed, the Immigration Judge has exclusive jurisdiction over the asylum application.

The full text of Matter of J-A-B- & I-J-V-A can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1008136/download

Seventh Circuit finds that Petitioner in Reinstatement Proceedings is not Eligible for Asylum

The Seventh Circuit overruled its prior decision holding that a petitioner in reinstatement proceedings does not have standing to challenge the statute and regulation that ban him from applying for asylum.  However, in reaching the merits of the claim, the court determined that the statute clearly renders such a petitioner ineligible for asylum.

The full text of Garcia v. Sessions can be found here:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2017/D10-11/C:16-3234:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2043619:S:0

Fourth Circuit Denies Family-Based Asylum Claim

The Fourth Circuit has upheld the denial of an asylum claim based on family membership, finding that the petitioner was threatened because of a personal dispute with her mother-in-law (who wanted custody of her minor child) and not on account of her family ties.  In so doing, the court distinguished its prior precedent regarding family-based asylum claims.

"Although the familial relationships at issue in Hernandez-Avalos and the present case involve a mother’s relationship with her son, this case is unlike Hernandez-Avalos in critical respects. In Hernandez-Avalos, a non-familial third party persecuted the petitioner because of her family association for the purpose of gang recruitment. In contrast, Velasquez had a long-standing personal disagreement with Estrada over a solely personal conflict regarding D.A.E.V. Estrada’s persecution of Velasquez was only between the two of them—that is, merely incidental to Estrada’s desire to obtain custody of D.A.E.V."  

The full text of Valesquez v. Sessions can be found here:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161669.P.pdf

Seventh Circuit Finds that Individual Subject to Reinstated Expedited Order of Removal has no Standing to Challenge Asylum Regulations

The Seventh Circuit has found that an individual subject to a reinstated order of removal, and thus, who is ineligible under the regulations to apply for asylum, has no standing to challenge that regulation because asylum is a discretionary form of relief.  

The full text of Garcia v. Sessions can be found here:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2017/D06-08/C:16-3234:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:1977342:S:0

Third Circuit Finds that Reinstated Order Bars Asylum

The Third Circuit has determined that an individual subject to a reinstated order of removal may not apply for asylum, but is instead limited to applying for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The full text of Cazun v. Attorney General can be found here:

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/153374p.pdf

Ninth Circuit Discusses Return of Abusive Spouse to Home Country as Grounds for Reopening Proceedings

In an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit determined that the return of an applicant's abusive spouse to her home country could qualify as changed country conditions that warranted reopening of her proceedings.  

The full text of Lopez v. Sessions can be found here: 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2017/04/27/11-70271.pdf

Ninth Circuit Addresses Mexican LGBT Asylum Claim

In an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit has applied the rationale of Bringas-Rodriguez to an asylum applicant whose claim was based on a future fear of harm, and not on past persecution.   Thus, even in cases involving future persecution, courts must consider that legislative developments in Mexico cannot be conflated with "on-the-ground progress" regarding the treatment of the LGBT community.

The decision in Hernandez v. Sessions can be found here: 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2017/04/20/13-71356.pdf

Second Circuit Defers to BIA on One-Year Filing Deadline for Asylum

The Second Circuit has deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in Matter of F-P-R-, which held that the one year filing deadline for asylum must be calculated from the applicant's last entry into the United States.  In so doing, the court overruled its prior precedent, which held that the filing deadline would not be tolled by a brief departure from the United States.

The full text of Linares-Urrutia v. Sessions can be found here:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a41ed0f7-8933-48f7-8278-abeb3772baac/8/doc/14-4419_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a41ed0f7-8933-48f7-8278-abeb3772baac/8/hilite/

First Circuit Misconstrues Family-Based Particular Social Group

The First Circuit affirmed the agency's decision.  "[T]he record adequately supports the IJ's finding –– which the BIA accepted –– that the threats against Marín stemmed not from Marín's kinship ties per se, but rather from what Marín did and Cuellar's desire in response either to seek retaliation against Marín or to seek to stop Marín because Cuellar believes that Marín's family may come after him.  The mere fact that Cuellar exclusively targeted members of Marín's family does not, as Marín argues, mean that the only logical inference is that kinship ties, rather than the desire for retaliation or deterrence, prompted Cuellar's threats."

The decision betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of family-based particular social groups.  Cuellar's anger against Marin and his family was directly tied into their kinship ties to Marin's father, who Cuellar murdered.  Thus, but-for Marin's kinship ties to his father, he would not have been targeted.  It's important to remember that Marin was not required to show that his kinship ties were the sole motivation for Cuellar's persecution, only that it was one central reason for the persecution.

The full text of Marin v. Lynch can be found here:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-2138P-01A.pdf