BIA Holds Candor About Past Lies Does Not Alone Establish Credibility

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to a family from Burkina Faso, whose claim rested on the lead respondent's account of his service in the presidential security regiment. The respondent had twice denied any military service on visa applications years earlier, and the immigration judge found this indicative of a propensity for dishonesty but nonetheless deemed him credible because he was forthright in admitting he had lied.

The Board held that this reasoning was clearly erroneous, since candor about a documented history of lying to obtain immigration benefits does not, by itself, establish present credibility. The Board also found that the immigration judge did not adequately address inconsistencies undermining the respondent's explanation for the earlier falsehoods, failed to make an explicit credibility finding as to a corroborating witness who gave false testimony about a pending arrest warrant, and did not sufficiently analyze whether the documentary evidence corroborated the specific details of the claimed persecution. The case was remanded for a fuller credibility and corroboration analysis.

The full text of Matter of T-D-E- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1450076/dl?inline

BIA Holds Bond Venue Follows Detainee's Location, Not Where Removal Case Is Pending

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from an immigration judge's decision releasing a respondent on an $8,000 bond, after the respondent had already been transferred from Massachusetts to a detention facility in Texas before the bond hearing took place. The immigration judge in Massachusetts reasoned that venue for the bond request remained proper there because the respondent's removal case was still administratively pending in that court.

The Board held that bond proceedings are separate from removal proceedings, and that the controlling regulation ties bond venue to the respondent's place of detention, not to which immigration court is handling the underlying removal case. Because the respondent had already been transferred to Texas by the time he filed his second custody redetermination request, the Massachusetts immigration court was not the proper venue, and the Board vacated the bond decision without reaching the merits of dangerousness or flight risk.

The full text of Matter of Vizcaino Aybar can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1450581/dl?inline

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 Oral Motion to Pretermit Provides Sufficient Notice of Intent to Remove Under Asylum Cooperative Agreement

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 and Colombian family, again based on the safe third country bar under the asylum cooperative agreement with Ecuador. The immigration judge had found that DHS's oral motion to pretermit did not provide adequate notice of its intent to remove the family to Ecuador and, alternatively, that the agreement did not apply absent an implementation plan.

The Board held that an oral motion to pretermit filed at a hearing is sufficient notice of DHS's intent to remove the family under the agreement, and reaffirmed that an immigration judge lacks authority to require proof of an implementation plan, proof that the third country is willing to accept the family, or an assessment of whether the third country offers full and fair procedures. The Board also held that the immigration judge erred in declining to designate Ecuador as the country of removal once DHS indicated its intent to do so. The case was remanded for an expeditious determination of the safe third country bar.

The full text of Matter of E-A-R-M- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1451996/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

BIA Denies Reopening Where Forced-Abortion Claim Lacked Reasonably Available Corroboration

The Board of Immigration Appeals has denied a Chinese respondent’s motion to reconsider and motion to reopen after the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The respondent claimed that she had been forced to undergo an abortion in China and argued that the agency improperly required corroboration.

The Board held that the Immigration Judge properly required corroboration of credible but unpersuasive testimony and properly found that corroborating evidence of the alleged forced abortion was reasonably available. The Board also rejected the respondent’s ineffective assistance claim, finding that counsel did not act unreasonably by relying on a certified translation of evidence submitted by prior counsel.

The full text of Matter of Y-H-L- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1446391/dl?inline

BIA Finds ACA Bar May Be Resolved Without Evidentiary Hearing Absent Individualized Harm Evidence

The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that an evidentiary hearing is generally unnecessary before applying the safe-third-country bar when the respondent is subject to an asylum cooperative agreement and the record contains no evidence of individualized risk of harm in the ACA country. The case involved a Cuban respondent subject to the U.S.-Ecuador ACA.

The Board sustained DHS’s interlocutory appeal and found that generalized country conditions evidence was insufficient to require a full evidentiary hearing. The Board also emphasized that Immigration Judges lack authority to review the government’s decisions regarding acceptance under an ACA or the adequacy of procedures in the ACA country. The case was remanded for an expeditious ACA determination.

The full text of Matter of A-C-M- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1446476/dl?inline

BIA Finds Pending I-130s Do Not Justify Deferring Asylum Pretermission Ruling

The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that potential eligibility for collateral relief is not a valid reason to deny or postpone consideration of DHS’s motion to pretermit asylum applications. The respondents, Belizean nationals, had pending I-130 petitions, and the Immigration Judge denied DHS’s pretermission motion without reaching its merits.

The Board sustained DHS’s interlocutory appeal. It held that possible future eligibility for another form of relief does not affect the legal sufficiency of an asylum application, particularly where the Immigration Judge lacks authority to adjudicate the collateral relief at issue. The case was remanded for the Immigration Judge to decide the pretermission motion on its merits.

The full text of Matter of T-A-G- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1449081/dl?inline

BIA Says Withholding Grant Matters in Discretionary Asylum Analysis

The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that a grant of withholding of removal is an important factor in deciding whether asylum may be denied as a matter of discretion. The respondent, a Cameroonian national, received withholding of removal but was denied asylum, adjustment of status, and cancellation of removal in discretion based in part on multiple DUI convictions and related driving offenses.

The Board explained that a grant of withholding mitigates the risk of future persecution because the respondent cannot be removed to the country where persecution is likely. As a result, the discretionary asylum analysis may give less weight to future persecution risk than in cases where withholding has not been granted. The Board dismissed the appeal and affirmed the discretionary denials.

The full text of Matter of P-A-C- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1447056/dl?inline

BIA Finds Pennsylvania Drug Trafficking Conviction Is a Particularly Serious Crime

The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that a Pennsylvania conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance was a particularly serious crime. The respondent, a transgender woman from Jamaica, had previously been granted asylum, and DHS appealed.

The Board found that the offense involved serious drug trafficking conduct, including a significant sentence and circumstances showing a large packaged quantity of marijuana and attempted concealment from police. The Board also denied CAT protection, finding that past harm was inflicted by private actors and that the respondent had not shown likely government acquiescence in future torture. The Board sustained DHS’s appeal and ordered removal to Jamaica.

The full text of Matter of G-L-C- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1449211/dl?inline

BIA Finds Family Hardship Insufficient for 212(h) Waiver

The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed a grant of a 212(h) waiver and adjustment of status to a Barbadian respondent. The respondent relied on hardship to his U.S. citizen wife and children and lawful permanent resident mother, but DHS appealed the Immigration Judge’s grant of relief.

The Board held that the emotional and financial difficulties the respondent’s family would experience did not rise to extreme hardship. The Board also found that the respondent’s serious and lengthy criminal history, including convictions and non-conviction conduct, outweighed his equities in the discretionary analysis. The Board sustained DHS’s appeal and ordered him removed to Barbados.

The full text of Matter of Best can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1449611/dl?inline

BIA Finds Safeguards Adequate for Incompetent Applicant in Withholding-Only Proceedings

The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that an incompetent applicant in withholding-only proceedings received adequate safeguards where a qualified representative was appointed and provided meaningful assistance. The Honduran applicant had serious mental health diagnoses and sought withholding of removal and CAT protection based on fear of harm in Honduras.

The Board held that termination was unavailable in withholding-only proceedings and that the safeguards provided satisfied due process. The Board also found that the applicant did not establish a particularized risk of future persecution based on mental illness, or that he was more likely than not to be tortured. The appeal was dismissed.

The full text of Matter of C-L-R- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1449436/dl?inline

BIA Declines Sua Sponte Reopening Based on Post-Order Equities

The Board of Immigration Appeals has denied an untimely motion to reopen filed nearly ten years after a final removal order. The respondent relied on equities acquired after the removal order, including marriage to a U.S. citizen, a pending spousal petition, a U.S. citizen child, and hardship to his family.

The Board concluded that the respondent did not show an exceptional situation warranting sua sponte reopening. Relying on Matter of Yadav and related precedent, the Board emphasized that equities acquired years after a final order of removal generally do not justify reopening, especially where the visa petition remains pending rather than approved. The motion to reopen was denied, and the stay request was denied as moot.

The full text of Matter of Herrera-Nunez can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1445651/dl?inline

BIA Announces Prospective DHS-First Stay Request Rule

The Board of Immigration Appeals has announced a new prospective procedural rule for stay requests filed with motions to reopen or reconsider. The Board held that a respondent with a final order of removal should first request a stay from DHS before asking the Board or an Immigration Judge (IJ) to grant a stay in connection with a motion to reopen or reconsider.

The Board explained that DHS has statutory authority to execute removal orders and is generally best positioned to consider stay requests first. The new rule applies only to stay requests filed after June 12, 2026, and does not bar the Board or IJ from granting a stay after DHS denies one. Emergency situations, including imminent removal of a detained respondent, may remain excepted.

The full text of Matter of Herrera-Nunez can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1445646/dl?inline

BIA Holds Social Distinction Generally Must Be Measured Countrywide

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the social distinction element of a particular social group generally must be measured on a countrywide basis, rather than from the perspective of a neighborhood or other limited geographic area. The case involved a Honduran applicant in withholding-only proceedings who had opposed MS-13’s attempt to recruit her daughter.

The Board vacated the grant of withholding of removal. It concluded that the Immigration Judge erred by relying on neighborhood-level recognition to find social distinction and also erred in the nexus analysis. The Board found that MS-13’s central motive was recruitment, compliance, and control, not the applicant’s family membership. The case was remanded for CAT proceedings only.

The full text of Matter of S-E-M-Z- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1444566/dl?inline

BIA Finds Health Care Fraud Conviction Is a Particularly Serious Crime

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a federal health care fraud conviction under 18 USC 1347 is a particularly serious crime. The respondent, a lawful permanent resident from Nigeria, had been convicted of health care fraud involving millions of dollars in loss and sought asylum, withholding, and CAT protection.

The Board concluded that health care fraud inherently involves deceitful conduct and can qualify as a particularly serious crime, even though it is a property offense. The Board noted that aggravated felonies are a category of crimes that are more likely to fall within the ambit of a particularly serious crime. The amount of loss, restitution, and the respondent’s role in the offense supported the particularly serious crime finding. The Board also upheld the denial of CAT protection, finding that the respondent had not shown that kidnapping or torture in Nigeria was more likely than not.

The full text of Matter of J-O-A- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1444231/dl?inline

BIA Reverses LPR Cancellation Grant Based on Criminal History

The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed a grant of cancellation of removal to a Canadian lawful permanent resident. The respondent had lived in the United States for decades and had significant family, employment, tax, and health-related equities, but also had multiple criminal convictions and recent conduct showing continued recidivism.

The Board found that the Immigration Judge gave insufficient weight to the respondent’s criminal history, including convictions for stolen property, burglary, endangering the welfare of a child, driving while ability impaired, and harassment. The Board concluded that the adverse factors outweighed the respondent’s equities, sustained DHS’s appeal, and ordered him removed to Canada.

The full text of Matter of Mills can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1443916/dl?inline

BIA Finds Prior UAC Designation and Approved SIJ Petition Do Not Create Bond Jurisdiction

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that neither a prior unaccompanied-child designation nor an approved SIJ petition gives an Immigration Judge authority to redetermine custody for a respondent who has not been admitted to the United States. The respondent had entered as a minor, later aged out of UAC status, and had an approved Form I-360 SIJ petition.

The Board followed Matter of Yajure Hurtado and held that the respondent remained an applicant for admission subject to INA 235(b)(2)(A), rather than INA 236(a). Because section 235(b)(2)(A) does not provide for Immigration Judge bond redetermination, the Board sustained DHS’s appeal, vacated the bond order, and ordered the respondent detained without bond.

The full text of Matter of N-A-G-C- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1443566/dl?inline

BIA Rejects Diagnosis-Only Mental Health Particular Social Group

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the proposed particular social group of “Mexican men with Schizoaffective Disorder” is not cognizable when defined only by diagnosis. The Board found that the group lacked particularity and social distinction, because the record did not define limiting characteristics or show that Mexican society perceived people with that diagnosis as a distinct group.

The Board also found that the respondent’s fear of future persecution rested on a speculative chain of events, including loss of medication, erratic behavior, police attention, institutionalization, and harm inside an institution. The Board vacated the asylum grant, denied asylum and withholding, and remanded for CAT consideration.

The full text of Matter of L-A-D- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1442186/dl?inline

BIA Finds Three-Day Detention and Single Beating Did Not Rise to Persecution

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a Mauritanian respondent’s three-day detention, during which he was beaten once but did not suffer significant injury, did not rise to the level of persecution. DHS appealed the Immigration Judge’s grant of withholding of removal, which had been based on political opinion and tribal membership claims.

The Board also held that a government’s general deference to tribal mechanisms for resolving tribal conflict does not, without more, show that the government is unable or unwilling to protect against tribal harm. The Board sustained DHS’s appeal, vacated the withholding grant, and remanded for further consideration of future harm and CAT protection.

The full text of Matter of A-H-D- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1442386/dl?inline