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 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

Seventh Circuit Denies Petition for Failure to Exhaust Arguments Before the Board

The Seventh Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican mother and her children who fled after the Knights Templar cartel threatened to kidnap the children unless a ransom was paid, holding that the petitioner forfeited her arguments on appeal by failing to adequately develop them before the Board.

Although the immigration judge found the petitioner credible, the Court held that her four-paragraph brief to the Board never articulated her proposed social group, never engaged with the judge's finding that the cartel's threats were motivated by ordinary extortion rather than a protected ground, and never challenged the judge's findings on internal relocation or an objectively reasonable fear of future harm. Because exhaustion requires presenting an argument with enough detail to give the Board a fair opportunity to address it, not merely referencing the adverse ruling, the Court held her asylum, withholding, and CAT claims were all foreclosed.

The full text of Gonzalez Perez v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D09-08/C:23-2811:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:3604650:S:0

BIA Holds Maduro's Removal From Power Is a Changed Country Condition Requiring Reassessment of Venezuelan Asylum Claims

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to a Venezuelan woman whose claim rested on her political opposition to former President Nicolás Maduro's government, holding that Maduro's January 2026 removal from power and the transfer of executive authority to an Interim Government constitute a change in country conditions that the immigration judge failed to adequately assess against the respondent's individual circumstances.

The Board held that a change in national leadership does not automatically eliminate a well-founded fear of persecution, since officials or security forces tied to a former regime may still pose a danger to a particular applicant, but that the immigration judge's conclusory statements that "the essence of the Maduro government remains" lacked the factual findings needed to support that conclusion here. The Board took administrative notice of the reopening of the U.S. embassy in Caracas and ongoing U.S.-brokered discussions toward a democratic transition and remanded for the judge to determine whether the individuals and institutions the respondent fears remain willing and able to target her under the new political circumstances. The Board also flagged that the judge never resolved whether the respondent's asylum application, filed under her own name only in March 2026 despite having been a derivative beneficiary on her husband's 2015 filing, satisfied the one-year filing deadline or an exception to it, and remanded for that threshold question to be addressed first.

The full text of Matter of A-E-V-M- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1460306/dl?inline

BIA Vacates Asylum Grant for Failure to Address Numerous Credibility Inconsistencies

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to an Afghan respondent who claimed persecution by the Taliban based on his imputed political opinion as a women's-rights advocate, holding that the immigration judge's credibility finding failed to grapple with numerous unresolved inconsistencies in the record.

The Board identified conflicting testimony about when the respondent's problems with the Taliban began, contradictions regarding his employment history and payment for his advocacy work, inconsistencies between his hearing testimony and credible fear interview about how he identified his captors, and unexplained discrepancies concerning his travel through multiple countries before reaching the United States, including how he obtained visas to Germany and Austria along the way. Because an immigration judge must consider the totality of the circumstances in evaluating credibility, the Board remanded for a fuller credibility analysis before any reassessment of the respondent's asylum, withholding, and CAT claims.

The full text of Matter of A-Q-R-K- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1459986/dl?inline

Ninth Circuit Reverses Adverse Credibility Finding Rooted in Translation Difficulties

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by an Angolan opposition-party activist and his family, holding that the agency's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence because it rested on trivial inconsistencies and disjointed testimony attributable to translation difficulties rather than any lack of veracity.

The Court held that minor variations in describing the exact location of an injury sustained during a chaotic police attack, an ambiguous asylum-application phrase that did not actually contradict later testimony, and apparent nonresponsiveness that instead reflected the petitioner's evident confusion amid garbled interpretation could not support an adverse credibility finding under the totality of the circumstances. The Court also held the agency committed legal error in denying CAT relief by overlooking country-conditions evidence tying the petitioner's political party membership to a particularized risk of torture and by failing to recognize that his family's months spent in hiding did not show a viable option for internal relocation.

The full text of Mbueno-Vita v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/28/24-5472.pdf

First Circuit Denies Asylum Where Family Was Only Indirectly Harmed at a Relative's House

The First Circuit has denied petitions for review filed by a Brazilian family who were denied asylum after military police repeatedly harassed and threatened relatives at the maternal grandmother's house, which the family visited but did not live in, because the mother's brother was a wanted gang leader who had once lived there.

The Court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion that the petitioners themselves were never physically harmed and that the harm inflicted on their relatives was only limited and indirect, since the police appeared to be targeting the grandmother's house as the suspected locus of the brother's criminal activity rather than the family as such. The Court also upheld the agency's rejection of the petitioners' argument that they were similarly situated to an aunt who was separately granted asylum, since that aunt had been physically arrested and lived at the targeted house, unlike the petitioners.

The full text of Pereira Alves v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1686P-01A.pdf

Fourth Circuit Holds Agency Erred by Focusing on Why the Persecutor Targeted the Petitioner's Partner

The Fourth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran mother and her children denied asylum after a man threatened them in retaliation for her former partner's affair with the man's wife, holding that the agency legally erred by analyzing why the persecutor targeted the former partner rather than why he threatened the family.

The Court held that the nexus inquiry must focus on the persecutor's reasons for targeting the petitioner herself, and that the record compelled a finding that the petitioner was threatened solely because of her family relationship to her former partner, satisfying the "at least one central reason" standard even though the underlying dispute stemmed from personal matters between the men. A concurring judge wrote separately to flag, for future cases, that the government may be able to defend an agency ruling on grounds the agency did not itself invoke following the Supreme Court's decision in FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments.

The full text of Orellana-Ramos v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/252320.P.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

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 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

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