BIA Holds "Brazilian Children" and "Abandoned Brazilian Children" Are Not Particular Social Groups

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of humanitarian asylum to a Brazilian man who was physically abused as a child and drugged and raped by two men, vacating the grant and remanding for consideration of his separate CAT claim.

The Board held that "Brazilian children" and "abandoned Brazilian children" are not cognizable particular social groups because they lack the required particularity, encompassing an enormous and diffuse swath of society with no defined boundaries around the term "abandoned." The Board also found clear error in the immigration judge's conclusion that the Brazilian government was unable or unwilling to control the respondent's abusers, noting that one perpetrator had been arrested in connection with other crimes and that Brazil provides services and a hotline to protect abused children, and held that without a showing of past persecution the respondent could not qualify for humanitarian asylum.

The full text of Matter of A-G-O-F- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1453426/dl?inline

Seventh Circuit Denies Asylum to Serbian Soccer Player Targeted by Hooligans

The Seventh Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Serbian professional soccer player who sought asylum after being beaten by a violent fan group dissatisfied with his on-field performance. The immigration judge found the petitioner's account of the attack and subsequent threats credible but concluded he had not established persecution on account of a protected ground.

The Court agreed that neither "soccer players" nor "former soccer players" constitutes a cognizable particular social group, since the harm the petitioner feared stemmed from personal, performance-related grievances rather than an immutable characteristic. The Court also found the petitioner's imputed political opinion argument undeveloped and waived. Separately, the Court expressed concern about immigration judges' growing practice of appending boilerplate legal citations in a separate document from their factual findings, though it declined to disturb the outcome here since the result would not have changed.

The full text of Andric v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D07-01/C:25-1448:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:3567073:S:0

Supreme Court Upholds Metering at the Border

The Supreme Court has held that a noncitizen standing in Mexico who is prevented from crossing the border has not “arrived in the United States” for purposes of the INA’s inspection and asylum provisions. The case challenged the government’s metering policy, under which CBP limited the number of asylum seekers processed each day at U.S.-Mexico land ports of entry.

The Court concluded that “arrives in the United States” requires physical entry into the country. Because the plaintiffs had not crossed into the United States, the INA did not require inspection or allow them to apply for asylum based solely on their presence at the border in Mexico. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.

The full text of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-5_86qd.pdf

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

First Circuit Denies Reconsideration in Brazilian Domestic Violence Asylum Case

The First Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Brazilian family after the BIA denied reconsideration of its dismissal of their asylum appeal. The lead petitioner’s claim was based on past abuse by her former partner, the father of her oldest child.

The Court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting reconsideration. The proposed group of Brazilian women unable to leave relationships with the fathers of their children failed on the record because the petitioner had left the relationship, obtained a restraining order, entered a new relationship, and had no contact with the abuser for many years. The Court also upheld the BIA’s rejection of the family-based proposed group as insufficiently particular.

The full text of Alves-Pains v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1895P-01A.pdf

Fourth Circuit Remands Salvadoran Women PSG Claim

The Fourth Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran mother and her minor daughter. The lead petitioner fled El Salvador after her father threatened her following her public accusations that he had orchestrated her mother’s murder.

The Court found that the BIA abused its discretion by refusing to review the proposed particular social group of Salvadoran women on the ground that it had been raised for the first time on appeal. The record showed that the group had been raised before, and decided by, the Immigration Judge. The Court denied the petition as to the remaining political opinion, particular social group, and CAT claims, but vacated and remanded on the Salvadoran women PSG.

The full text of Alvarado-Paz v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251119.P.pdf

First Circuit Remands Where BIA Failed to Address Police-Persecution Theories

The First Circuit has granted petitions for review filed by a Kenyan respondent whose asylum, humanitarian asylum, and withholding claims were denied by the BIA. The Immigration Judge had found the respondent credible and found past persecution on account of family, based on abuse by his father, who was associated with the Mungiki.

The Court found that the BIA failed to address two arguments raised by the respondent: that Kenyan police would target him based on his father’s Mungiki membership, and that police would target him as an ethnic Kikuyu man during crackdowns on Mungiki. Because the BIA did not explain whether it overlooked those arguments or deemed them forfeited, the Court vacated the BIA’s orders and remanded.

The full text of Muchiri v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1340P-01A.pdf

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

Second Circuit Requires But-For Eligibility Determination for Material Support Waiver Process

The Second Circuit has granted in part and denied in part a petition for review filed by a Sri Lankan respondent who was found to have provided material support to the LTTE by translating during an interrogation. The BIA treated the material support bar as dispositive of the respondent’s asylum, statutory withholding, and CAT withholding claims, and therefore declined to reach the merits of those claims.

The Court held that the BIA erred by failing to determine whether the respondent would be eligible for asylum or statutory withholding of removal but for the material support bar. Without that determination, the respondent could not pursue a discretionary waiver of the material support bar from DHS, which frustrated the statutory and regulatory waiver scheme. However, the Court denied the petition as to CAT protection, finding that substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that the respondent had not shown that he would more likely than not be tortured if returned to Sri Lanka.

The full text of Sufiyan v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/22-6392_complete_amd_opn.pdf

First Circuit Rejects Family-Based Nexus Claim Arising from Paternal Abuse

The First Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran respondent who sought protection based on years of physical and verbal abuse by his father. The respondent argued that the abuse was connected to his family membership or to a proposed particular social group.

The Court found that substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that the father’s abuse was motivated by domestic and financial disputes, not by a protected ground. The Court also rejected the respondent’s argument that his credible testimony excused the need for corroboration, and found that he had waived the government-protection issue before the BIA.

The full text of Vasquez-Chavez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1306P-01A.pdf

BIA Rejects Particular Social Group of Married Mexican Women Unable to Leave Their Relationships

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the proposed particular social group of "married Mexican women who are unable to leave their relationship" is not cognizable because it is circularly defined and lacks particularity. The Board also held that a lawful marriage cannot be presumed merely because two people cohabited or had children together.

The Board vacated the grant of withholding of removal and remanded for further consideration of CAT protection. The Board found that the Immigration Judge had relied on overruled precedent, made insufficient findings regarding whether the respondent was legally married under applicable law, and clearly erred in finding that the Mexican government was unable or unwilling to protect her and that internal relocation was unreasonable.

The full text of Matter of V-A-B- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1439986/dl?inline

Ninth Circuit Applies Substantial Evidence Review to Persecution Determination

The Ninth Circuit has determined that substantial evidence review applies to the agency's conclusion that undisputed facts do not rise to the level of persecution. The Court explained that, under Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, the agency's application of the INA to established facts is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, abrogating any prior Ninth Circuit precedent that may have applied de novo review.

Applying that standard, the Court upheld the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection to a Sikh man from Punjab who supported the Mann Party. The Court found that the record did not compel a conclusion that threats, two beatings, and a one-night police detention amounted to past persecution. The Court also held that the agency reasonably found that the petitioner could relocate within India, and rejected the argument that the agency was required to apply a special Mann Party relocation rule to all Sikh applicants from Punjab.

The full amended text of Singh v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/05/15/24-815.pdf

Seventh Circuit Rejects Withholding Claim by Indian Muslim Slaughterhouse Operator

The Seventh Circuit has dismissed in part and denied in part a petition for review filed by an Indian Muslim who sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the determination that the asylum application was untimely, because the petitioner did not develop any argument that recent Supreme Court authority had altered the Court's prior jurisdictional rule. The Court did note that a circuit split exists on this issue, and that it will eventually have to address it head on.

The Court also upheld the denial of withholding of removal. The petitioner's single beating, which resulted in minor injuries, did not compel a finding of past persecution, particularly where police stopped the attack and the business that allegedly motivated the harm was no longer operating. The Court further found that the agency reasonably determined that the petitioner could relocate within India.

The full text of Mohammed v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D05-05/C:25-1901:J:Scudder:aut:T:fnOp:N:3535996:S:0

BIA Defines Political Opinion as Requiring a Connection to a Government or De Facto Government

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that disapproval of or opposition to criminal gangs is not sufficient to establish a political opinion under the INA. To establish a political opinion, the applicant must have an actual or imputed belief or conviction regarding a discrete cause that is tied to the government of a country, including a de facto government.

The Board rejected the argument that opposition to the Maras and their activities in El Salvador constituted a political opinion, finding that the record did not establish that gangs in El Salvador exercise actual sovereignty or control such that they constitute a de facto government. The Board also rejected the respondent’s gender- and family-based particular social group arguments under recent Board and Attorney General precedent, and affirmed the denial of CAT protection.

The full text of Matter of D-G-E-A- & N-G-G-E- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1436936/dl?inline

D.C. Circuit Affirms Injunction Against Summary Removal Procedures Under Presidential Proclamation

The D.C. Circuit has determined that sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) do not authorize the President to remove non-citizens who are already present in the United States through summary procedures that bypass the removal procedures established by the INA. The Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the Proclamation and implementing Guidance were unlawful to the extent they circumvented statutory removal procedures and prevented individuals from applying for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

“Statutory text, structure, and consistent Executive Branch and judicial recognition of the law’s constraints all lead to the same conclusion: Congress enacted the asylum statute, with narrow exceptions specified by statute, to grant all foreign individuals ‘physically present’ in the United States a right to apply for asylum and have their individual applications adjudicated. If the Government wishes to modify this carefully structured and intricate system, it must present those arguments to the only branch of government able to amend the INA: Congress.”

The Court also affirmed class certification as clarified by the stay panel and rejected the government’s argument that 8 USC 1252(f)(1) barred the district court’s injunctive relief or vacatur of the Guidance.

The full text of Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Mullin can be found here: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/04/25-5243-2170245.pdf

First Circuit Rejects Categorical Rule that Resistance to Gangs Cannot be Political Opinion

The First Circuit has rejected a categorical rule that resistance to gangs cannot be a political opinion.

“[I]n certain locations, gangs may take on a quasi-governmental role such that opposition to them is similar to opposing a government. Whether a particular gang constitutes a political entity or only a criminal one is, of course, a question that is highly context-dependent and fact-intensive.”

“When evaluating political opinion claims based on resisting gang recruitment or gang opposition, the factfinder must determine whether the applicant has an actual or imputed political opinion; if so, it must then conduct a fact-intensive assessment of the claim to determine if there is a nexus between the opinion and the gang's conduct. Successful applicants will submit persuasive evidence showing, inter alia, (1) that they possess a political opinion, or that the gang attributed a political opinion to them, and (2) a connection between the gang conduct at issue and the actual or imputed political opinion.”

The full text of Lopez Martinez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1225P-01A.pdf

Fifth Circuit Finds that Affirmative Asylum Denial is not Final Agency Action

The Fifth Circuit has determined that asylum applicants protected by Temporary Protected Status cannot sue over the denial of their affirmative asylum applications because the denials are not final agency actions.

The full text of Sayegh de Kewayfati v. Bondi can be found here:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20073-CV0.pdf

BIA Overturns Grant of Asylum to Political Activist from Moldova

The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed the grant of asylum to a political activist from an area of Moldova controlled by separatists. “The Immigration Judge’s finding was based on the fact that the respondent was issued a pretextual summons for his political activity and on country conditions evidence showing that the separatists controlling Transnistria have detained political activists and subjected them to severe harm. However, the Immigration Judge did not properly consider the respondent’s testimony that his son appeared pursuant to an identical summons and was released without incident. While we acknowledge the generalized country conditions evidence relied on by the Immigration Judge, the specific experience of the respondent’s son undermines his claim that he would be singled out for persecution based on the issuance of an identical summons. The fact that the respondent was able to remain in Moldova for several years without being physically harmed after the October 2021 beatings while continuing to publicly engage in political activity also significantly undermines his claim that he would be persecuted in the future. So does the respondent’s testimony that he was able to freely leave Moldova without incident.”

The full text of Matter of N-P-A- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1420981/dl?inline