BIA Imposes Reciprocal Discipline on Attorney Suspended by the Ninth Circuit Over AI-Generated Brief Errors

In a precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals has imposed a six-month reciprocal suspension on an attorney who had already been suspended by the Ninth Circuit after filing a brief containing errors traced to generative AI use. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a) and (b), a certified record of a federal court suspension triggers immediate suspension before the Board and creates a rebuttable presumption that equivalent discipline is warranted, which the attorney can overcome only with clear and convincing evidence of a due process violation, an "infirmity of proof," or a "grave injustice."

The Board rejected each of the attorney's arguments for avoiding reciprocal discipline. It held that the Ninth Circuit had properly inferred, from circumstantial evidence including an implausible explanation and a pattern of similar conduct, that the attorney knew his brief contained fabricated or erroneous material. And distinguishing hardship from injustice under Matter of Kronegold, the Board emphasized that professional conduct standards do not bend based on the tools an attorney uses to prepare a filing — discipline for AI-related errors, including citations to nonexistent cases, is ordinary professional regulation rather than an outlier result.

The full text of Matter of Mike Singh Sethi can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463666/dl?inline

BIA Holds It Loses Jurisdiction Upon Remand and a New Hearing Is Not Required Unless the Remand Order Says So

The Board of Immigration Appeals, in a precedent decision clarifying Matter of Patel, has held that it does not retain jurisdiction over a case after remanding the record to an Immigration Court, and that an Immigration Judge is not required to hold a new hearing on remand unless the Board's order expressly directs one. Where a remand is unqualified, jurisdiction returns entirely to the Immigration Judge, who may conduct whatever further proceedings the remand order calls for, consistent with the INA and the regulations.

Applying that rule, the Board found no error in the Immigration Judge's decision to issue a new ruling denying withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture without convening an additional hearing, since the Board's remand order did not require one and the respondent had already received a full hearing before the case went up on appeal. The Board concluded that reassessing the existing record without reopening the evidentiary record did not violate due process or exceed the scope of the remand.

The full text of Matter of C-M-H-H- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463836/dl?inline

BIA Vacates Bond Based on Undisclosed Prior Asylum Grant Obtained Under a Different Identity

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a $12,000 bond grant, holding that the respondent failed to meet his burden of showing he is not a flight risk. The Board found it highly significant that the respondent had omitted from his asylum application the fact that he had passed through Greece and previously obtained asylum there under a different identity, noting that the omission implicated his credibility, his true identity, potential statutory bars to relief, and his willingness to commit immigration fraud.

The Board also noted that the Immigration Judge had already denied the respondent's asylum application, and that the fraud revelations made his prospects on appeal "remote." While acknowledging favorable factors such as steady employment, a fixed address, and the absence of a criminal record, the Board concluded these could not overcome serious doubts about his trustworthiness and likelihood of complying with a removal order and vacated the bond.

The full text of Matter of Y-M-B- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463051/dl?inline

BIA Denies Cancellation of Removal to Longtime Resident, Citing False Testimony About Grandson's Death

The Board of Immigration Appeals has affirmed the denial of cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a) to a lawful permanent resident of fifty years who was found removable based on a child abuse conviction, upholding the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility finding and discretionary denial of relief. The respondent testified that her grandson died from a ruptured appendix and rib fractures caused by CPR, but the Board found this account materially inconsistent with police reports, medical records, and news coverage establishing that the child died of acute peritonitis caused by blunt force trauma and drug exposure, with rib fractures at various stages of healing.

Applying de novo discretionary review under Matter of C-V-T-, the Board weighed the respondent's substantial positive equities — her decades of residency, thirteen U.S. citizen children, and roughly twenty-seven grandchildren — against her involvement in money laundering and alien smuggling, her child abuse conviction, three substantiated child welfare investigations, and what the Board called her "devious and disingenuous" efforts to minimize her responsibility for her grandson's death. Citing Matter of Richards and Matter of Burbano, the Board held that a lack of candor of this kind is a significant adverse discretionary factor that outweighed her favorable equities and dismissed the appeal.

The full text of Matter of Leticia Cornejo-Aguilar can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463461/dl?inline

BIA Holds Bad Advice From a Non-Lawyer Does Not Excuse a Missed Hearing

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained a DHS appeal and reversed an Immigration Judge's sua sponte rescission of an in absentia removal order, holding that a respondent's claim that a non-attorney misled him about the need to appear at his hearing did not amount to the "exceptional circumstances" required to reopen. The respondent, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, argued he reasonably relied on the individual's assurances, but the Board noted that both of the respondent's own continuance motions listed him as proceeding pro se and bore his signature.

Consistent with Matter of Z-R-C-N-, the Board reiterated that bad advice from a non-lawyer does not excuse a failure to appear and emphasized that sua sponte authority to reopen a case must be reserved for truly exceptional situations, not invoked routinely. The motion to reopen was denied and the in absentia removal order reinstated.

The full text of Matter of K-K-U-J- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1462356/dl?inline

BIA Overrules Decades-Old Precedent, Holds an Admission to Drug Use Need Not Track the Statute's Precise Elements

In a significant precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals has overruled Matter of K- (1957) and Matter of J- (1945), holding that a non-citizen's admission to having possessed and used cocaine renders him inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) even though he was never advised of the precise statutory definition or essential elements of the offense before admitting to the conduct.

The Board reasoned that the controlled substance inadmissibility ground requires only that the respondent voluntarily admit to conduct that constitutes the essential elements of the offense and receive a fair hearing — nothing in the statute's plain language requires that he first be instructed on the formal legal definition of the crime. Requiring that additional procedural step, the Board held, "exceeds what is required under the plain language of the statute," and the appeal was dismissed.

The full text of Matter of Tirso Mendez Maldonado can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1462126/dl?inline

BIA Rejects Due Process Challenge Premised on Claims of Institutional Bias and Board Reorganization

The Board of Immigration Appeals has denied a motion to reopen built on allegations that the respondent's hearing was tainted by improper influence over the Immigration Judge, expedited handling, and systemic bias stemming from the Board's recent reorganization. The Board called the claims "conspiracy theories and innuendo" unsupported by credible evidence, rejecting a newspaper article and supporting affidavits as insufficient because the article consisted largely of anonymously-sourced opinion and none of the affiants had firsthand knowledge of the Board's internal deliberations.

The Board held that expedited case processing does not itself suggest prejudgment, that recusals from decisions about whether to publish a ruling as precedent have no bearing on the outcome of the underlying case, and that the reduction of the Board from 28 to 15 members — which nearly tripled the annual output of published decisions — reflects efficiency rather than compromised independence. Citing Liteky v. United States, the Board reiterated that adverse rulings alone, including an unfavorable venue determination or a discretionary denial of a statutory waiver, do not establish bias.

The full text of Matter of M-K- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1462911/dl?inline

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 Orders Detention Without Bond Based on Pattern of DUI Arrests and a Domestic Assault Charge

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from an Immigration Judge's grant of bond, holding that the respondent failed to carry his burden under INA § 236(a) of showing he is not a danger to persons or property. The Board gave "substantial weight" to the respondent's pattern of alcohol-related driving arrests in 2021 and 2022, along with a more recent May 2026 arrest for domestic assault, and reiterated under Matter of Siniauskas that driving under the influence is a significant adverse consideration in custody determinations.

The Board acknowledged the respondent's family and community ties but held that, consistent with Matter of Adeniji, such equities generally do not mitigate a finding of dangerousness once a pattern of serious criminal conduct has been established. It vacated the Immigration Judge's bond decision and ordered the respondent detained without bond.

The full text of Matter of Roberto Morales Cuxun can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463806/dl?inline

BIA Reverses CAT Grant Where Respondent Failed to Corroborate Claimed Sexual Orientation

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of CAT deferral to a Guinean respondent whose asylum status had been terminated based on a Minnesota conviction for criminal sexual conduct that the immigration judge found to be a particularly serious crime, holding that the respondent's claimed sexual orientation, the basis for his CAT claim, was not credible and was inadequately corroborated.

The Board held that the respondent's description of only one same-sex relationship, with a former cellmate and no further detail, his otherwise exclusively opposite-sex relationships including the one underlying his criminal conviction, and his shifting self-descriptions as homosexual, bisexual, and gay undermined his claim, and that he provided no independent letters, affidavits, or other corroboration despite years of residence in the United States. The Board also rejected the respondent's separate procedural challenges, including his argument that the immigration judge should have qualified his expert witness on additional subjects, finding no prejudice from any of the claimed errors, and ordered him removed to Guinea.

The full text of Matter of S-K-E- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1460421/dl?inline

BIA Holds Street Racing and Resisting Arrest Established Danger to the Community in Bond Proceedings

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a $15,000 bond grant to a Kyrgyz respondent, holding that his recent arrests for driving on a license suspended for street racing, resisting arrest, and possessing contraband in jail demonstrated he had not met his burden of proving he is not a danger to the community.

The Board held that the immigration judge's finding that the respondent would not reoffend because he had "a lot to lose" was speculative and contradicted by his own recent conduct, and that a state court's decision to release him on his own recognizance did not bind the immigration judge's separate dangerousness assessment. Because a finding of dangerousness alone is dispositive of bond eligibility, the Board ordered the respondent detained without bond without reaching the question of flight risk.

The full text of Matter of Kamalov can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1460501/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

BIA Overrules Precedent, Holds Aggravated Felons Are Inadmissible as

The Board of Immigration Appeals has dismissed the appeal of a Nicaraguan woman convicted of federal identity theft and access-device fraud offenses, holding for the first time that any noncitizen with an aggravated felony conviction is inadmissible as a person "permanently ineligible to citizenship," since an aggravated felony conviction forever bars the good moral character required for naturalization.

The Board expressly overruled its decades-old precedent in Matter of Kanga, which had limited that inadmissibility ground to military draft evaders, holding that decision failed to apply the plain, forward-looking text of the INA's definition of "ineligible to citizenship." Because this represents a significant and reasonably unanticipated change in the law, the Board applied its new holding only prospectively, to aggravated felony convictions entered after the date of the decision, and on the merits affirmed the denial of a § 212(h) waiver, adjustment of status, and CAT protection to the respondent based on her extensive fraud-related criminal history.

The full text of Matter of A-V-O- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1461651/dl?inline

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

BIA Overrules Prior Precedent, Allows Notice to Appear to Be Mailed to an Address Provided Before Its Issuance

The Board of Immigration Appeals, sitting en banc, has overruled its own quarter-century-old precedent and held that DHS may serve a notice to appear by regular mail at the most recent address a noncitizen provided to the agency, even if that address was given before the notice to appear itself was issued.

The Board held that its prior decision had created an unworkable paradox by requiring an address to first be validated by a notice to appear's own advisals before it could be used to mail that very notice, an interpretation the Board found inconsistent with the statute's plain text permitting service by regular mail and with nearly all noncitizens' independent, ongoing obligation to keep their address current. Two members dissented, arguing the prior rule was faithful to the statute's specific in absentia provisions and that the majority's own cited statistics, showing dramatically rising numbers of in absentia orders over the past decade, undercut any claim that the old rule was unworkable.

The full text of Matter of Diji can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1460146/dl?inline

BIA Upholds Civil Penalty for Overstaying a Voluntary Departure Order Issued Decades Earlier

The Board of Immigration Appeals has dismissed the appeal of an Indian respondent fined $3,000 for failing to depart the United States within thirty days of a 2004 Board decision reinstating his grant of voluntary departure, rejecting his arguments that he lacked adequate notice and that the statute requires a willful failure to depart.

The Board held that both the immigration judge's and the Board's own orders expressly included the mandatory statutory notice of penalties, that notice to counsel of record satisfies due process regardless of the respondent's own language proficiency, and that the statute's plain terms impose the penalty for any voluntary failure to depart without requiring proof of willfulness. The Board also held that the $3,000 penalty complied with the statute and the regulations..

The full text of Matter of R-P-L- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1459551/dl?inline

BIA Holds Immigration Judges Lack Jurisdiction to Redetermine Bond After a Final Removal Order

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from an immigration judge's order releasing a respondent on a $1,500 bond after she had already been granted CAT protection and become subject to an administratively final removal order, holding that immigration judges generally lack jurisdiction to conduct custody redeterminations once a removal order becomes final.

The Board held that post-removal-period detention is governed exclusively by DHS's own regulatory custody-review process and, per the Supreme Court's decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis and Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, does not entitle a detained noncitizen to a bond hearing before an immigration judge, with the sole exception of DHS's own referral of special-circumstances cases. The Board vacated the bond order, noting that the respondent's proper avenues for relief are a custody review request to DHS or a habeas corpus petition in federal district court.

The full text of Matter of W-F-D- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1459006/dl?inline

BIA Denies Reinstatement to Attorney Suspended in One Jurisdiction Despite Standing Restored Elsewhere

The Board of Immigration Appeals has denied a petition for reinstatement filed by an attorney indefinitely suspended from practice before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and DHS since 2011, holding that regaining good standing in one state does not satisfy the regulatory definition of "attorney" where the petitioner remains barred from practicing in a federal appellate court.

The Board held that the regulatory definition requires a petitioner to show she is not under any order restricting her practice of law in any jurisdiction, and that the petitioner's resignation from a circuit court's bar in lieu of disciplinary proceedings remained unaddressed regardless of her reinstatement before a state supreme court. The Board also found reinstatement independently unwarranted because the attorney had registered for an EOIR identification number and appeared in several immigration court cases while still under suspension.

The full text of Matter of Jones can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1458896/dl?inline

BIA Declines to Recognize Late-Filed State Sentence "Clarification" That Contradicts the Original Order

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from an order terminating proceedings against a Ghanaian respondent, holding that a Georgia state court order purporting to "clarify" his twelve-month sentence for family violence battery, issued by a different judge more than six years later, is not valid for immigration purposes.

The Board held the clarification order did not correct a scrivener's error and was issued outside any statutory window for modifying a Georgia sentence, and that an order flatly contradicting rather than clarifying the original sentencing order is entitled to no deference under Matter of Thomas and Thompson. Because a term of imprisonment of one year still applied, the respondent's conviction remains an aggravated felony, and the Board remanded for the immigration judge to also assess the independent domestic-violence removability ground.

The full text of Matter of Boye can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1457656/dl?inline