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 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

Second Circuit Holds Conspiracy to Present a Baseless Immigration Document Is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

The Second Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Filipino lawful permanent resident convicted of knowing making or presenting materially false statements to immigration authorities, which categorically constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude.

The Court held that knowingly presenting to immigration authorities a required document that the presenter knows lacks any reasonable basis in law or fact is inherently deceitful conduct that impairs an important government function, satisfying the BIA's two-part definition of moral turpitude, which the Court adopted as its own post-Loper Bright. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the subclause could sweep in innocent conduct, explaining that his own hypotheticals, such as filing a meritless asylum application solely to access cancellation-of-removal proceedings, themselves qualified as CIMTs, and distinguished the statute from misprision of a felony, which the Court has previously held is not categorically a CIMT because it lacks any intent element.

The full text of Nemis v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-304_opn.pdf

Fourth Circuit Holds a Vacated Conviction Does Not Establish Inadmissibility

The Fourth Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Mexican lawful permanent resident denied a waiver of inadmissibility because a state court vacated her marijuana conviction only after the immigration judge's decision, holding that a vacated conviction no longer renders a noncitizen an "alien convicted of" a controlled-substance offense.

Declining to follow the BIA's longstanding framework distinguishing convictions vacated for substantive defects from those vacated for other reasons, the Court held that the statutory phrase describes a person's current legal status, not a mere historical fact, and that the background principle that vacated judgments are void ab initio confirms that a vacated conviction no longer counts against a noncitizen. The Court separately upheld as reasonable the regulations governing the timing of voluntary departure after a petition for review is filed, rejecting the petitioner's argument that they arbitrarily reward noncitizens who wait longer to seek review.

The full text of Yanez Piedra v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251258.P.pdf

Second Circuit Holds Conspiracy to Retaliate Against a Witness Is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

The Second Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Polish lawful permanent resident convicted of conspiring to retaliate against employees who sued his construction company for wage violations, holding that the offense is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude and that the moral turpitude removability ground is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to him.

The Court held that even the least culpable conduct covered by the statute, threatening property damage in retaliation for someone's participation in official proceedings, involves both the requisite culpable intent and reprehensible conduct because it strikes at the administration of justice itself. The Court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the removability ground does not reach inchoate conspiracy offenses, and declined to revisit several other arguments already rejected in an earlier petition under the law of the case doctrine.

The full text of Dziedziach v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-6837_opn.pdf

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

Eleventh Circuit Holds Florida Robbery by Sudden Snatching Is a Categorical Theft Offense

The Eleventh Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Trinidadian lawful permanent resident found ineligible for cancellation of removal based on a Florida robbery-by-sudden-snatching conviction, holding the offense categorically matches generic theft as an aggravated felony.

The Court held that generic theft requires only an intent to deprive someone with a superior possessory interest, not a title-owner, and that Florida's statute and standard jury instructions require exactly the same showing even where the direct victim is not the property's ultimate owner. The Court also held the statute's coverage of temporary as well as permanent deprivations does not create a mismatch, since generic theft likewise reaches less-than-permanent deprivations, and that the statute's requirement that the victim be unaware of or unwilling to permit the taking supplies the functional equivalent of a lack-of-consent element.

The full text of Ramdial v. U.S. Attorney General can be found here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202510093.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Oregon's Child Sexual-Display Offense Is a Categorical Crime of Child Abuse

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a lawful permanent resident removable for a conviction under Oregon's statute criminalizing using a child in a display of sexually explicit content, holding the offense is categorically a crime of child abuse under the same framework applied the same day in a companion California case.

The Court held Oregon courts have consistently required a mens rea of intent or knowledge for the offense, and that the actus reus categorically creates a likelihood of physical or emotional harm to the child regardless of the age gap between defendant and victim or whether physical touching occurred, distinguishing the petitioner's reliance on a narrower California statute previously found not to qualify.

The full text of Gonzalez-Godinez v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/10/19-71322.pdf

Fifth Circuit Holds Knowing Use of a Passport Invalidated by Changed Circumstances Is a CIMT

The Fifth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Nigerian lawful permanent resident found inadmissible for a prior conviction for using a forged passport, holding that knowing use of a false or invalidated passport is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.

No longer deferring to the BIA under Loper Bright, the Court independently held that using a document known to be false, or a once-valid passport known to have become void, involves the kind of fraud or deceit against the issuing government that has long defined moral turpitude, regardless of whether the specific conduct involved forgery or merely continued use of an invalidated document.

The full text of Ademola v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60475-CV0.pdf

Fifth Circuit Holds Illegal Firearms Export Conviction Falls Under Security-Related Removability Ground

The Fifth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Haitian lawful permanent resident convicted of smuggling fifty firearms to Haiti concealed in vehicles, rejecting his argument that the security-related removability ground for violating export laws should be read narrowly to require an actual national security or public safety threat.

The Court held that the plain text of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(A)(i), covering any activity violating a law prohibiting the export of goods, is satisfied by the petitioner's federal conviction for unlicensed firearms exportation regardless of whether the specific shipment endangered national security, rejecting his noscitur a sociis argument as subordinate to the statute's plain text. A dissenting judge argued the majority's reading would extend to trivial regulatory violations like exporting a bag of chips and urged that the provision be read, in context, to require an actual public-safety or national-security nexus.

The full text of Olibris v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60322-CV0.pdf

Second Circuit Holds New Jersey Disorderly Persons Offense Was a "Conviction" Under the INA

On remand from the Supreme Court in light of Loper Bright, the Second Circuit has again denied a petition for review filed by a Hong Kong-born lawful permanent resident found removable for two crimes involving moral turpitude, one of which was a New Jersey disorderly persons offense for theft by deception.

Applying independent judgment rather than deferring to the BIA's interpretation, the Court held that a "conviction" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) means a formal judgment of guilt reached through a proceeding affording the accused core criminal-procedural protections and resulting in a criminal sentence, regardless of how a state labels the offense or what collateral consequences it carries. Because the petitioner's disorderly persons proceeding provided those protections and exposed him to potential incarceration, the Court held it was a conviction under the INA and again denied his petition.

The full text of Wong v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/22-6185_2_opn.pdf

First Circuit Holds Witness-Tampering Conviction Is Not an Aggravated Felony Obstruction Offense

The First Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Liberian citizen and former Sierra Leonean child soldier found removable for a New Hampshire witness-retaliation conviction, holding that the offense does not qualify as an aggravated felony "relating to obstruction of justice" because it can be committed through pure revenge without any intent to interfere with a legal proceeding.

The Court held that the generic federal offense requires a specific intent to interfere with the legal process, consistent with the Supreme Court's reasoning in Pugin v. Garland, and that New Hampshire's highest court has upheld convictions under the statute based solely on a desire for personal payback. Because the least culpable conduct covered by the New Hampshire statute sweeps more broadly than the generic offense, the Court vacated the BIA's removability finding and did not reach the petitioner's separate challenge to the agency's reversal of his grant of CAT deferral.

The full text of Bangs v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1820P-01A.pdf

Sixth Circuit Adopts Probable Cause Standard for the Serious Nonpolitical Crime Bar

The Sixth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Brazilian man who shot and seriously injured his nephew during a car chase, holding as a matter of first impression that the statutory phrase "serious reasons for believing" a nonpolitical crime was committed requires no more than a finding of probable cause.

Joining the majority of circuits to address the question, the Court held that the government met its probable cause burden through the petitioner's outstanding attempted murder charge and his own admitted conduct, and that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he lacked the requisite intent or acted in justified self-defense. The Court separately upheld the denial of CAT protection, agreeing that the petitioner's connections to a criminal gang through his nephew were too limited and speculative to establish a likelihood of official acquiescence in torture.

The full text of Spindola v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0222p-06.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Oregon Assault Committed in a Child's Presence Is a Crime of Child Abuse

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a lawful permanent resident found removable for a felony assault conviction based on battering his wife in front of their minor children, holding that Oregon's enhanced fourth-degree assault statute is divisible and that his particular conviction matches the federal removability ground for a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.

Applying the modified categorical approach, the Court held that Oregon law requires the jury to unanimously find, as a distinct element, that the assault was committed in the immediate presence of or witnessed by a minor child, and that the petitioner's indictment and plea agreement confirmed he was convicted under that provision. The Court held that assaulting someone in a child's immediate presence places the child in real danger of bodily or mental harm and that Oregon's default criminal-negligence standard satisfies the minimum mens rea required, making the conviction a categorical match.

The full text of Diaz-Boyzo v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/23/17-72894.pdf

Fourth Circuit Holds Virginia Embezzlement Is Not Categorically a Crime of Fraud or Deceit

The Fourth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Honduran lawful permanent resident found removable based on a Virginia embezzlement conviction that the agency classified as an aggravated felony involving fraud or deceit.

Applying the categorical approach, the Court held that Virginia's embezzlement statute does not require any fraudulent or deceitful conduct by its elements, since a person can embezzle openly, without concealment or misrepresentation. The Court rejected the government's reliance on prior dicta suggesting embezzlement generally involves dishonesty, explaining that Virginia's statute criminalizes only the wrongful taking of property already in the defendant's possession. The Court vacated the removal order and remanded to the agency.

The full text of Ramos v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/252037.P.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds California Child Cruelty Conviction and Oregon Child Neglect Conviction are Crimes of Child Abuse

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican respondent found removable based on a California conviction for cruelty to a child under Penal Code section 273a(a). The Court considered the meaning of the INA’s crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment ground after Loper Bright, without deferring to the BIA under Chevron.

The Court held that the INA provision covers child endangerment and does not require actual injury to the child. It also held that the provision requires at least criminal negligence and conduct creating a substantial risk of physical or mental harm, and that it is not limited to parents or guardians. The Court concluded that California Penal Code section 273a(a) categorically fits within the removability ground.

The Ninth Circuit also denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican respondent found ineligible for cancellation of removal based on Oregon child neglect convictions. The respondent had pleaded guilty after leaving young children home alone for about forty-five minutes, during which a two-year-old left the apartment.

Applying the same framework announced in the consolidated Leon-Briviesca decision, the Court held that Oregon Revised Statutes section 163.545 categorically qualifies as a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment under the INA. The conviction therefore rendered the respondent removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The full text of Leon-Biviesca v. Blanche and Rivera-Mendoza v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/25/21-70107.pdf

Eleventh Circuit Finds Florida Aggravated Assault Is a Crime of Violence

The Eleventh Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Haitian lawful permanent resident who sought reopening of removal proceedings. The petitioner argued that Florida aggravated assault should not qualify as a crime of violence because the offense could be committed with a reckless mens rea.

The Court rejected that argument, relying on the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of the aggravated assault statute and the Eleventh Circuit’s Somers decisions. The Court held that Florida aggravated assault categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 USC 16 and therefore as an aggravated felony for immigration purposes. The Court declined to resolve whether equitable tolling is available for the 30-day petition-for-review deadline because the petition failed on the merits.

The full text of Senatus v. U.S. Attorney General can be found here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202410514.pdf

Fourth Circuit Finds New Jersey Child Sexual Abuse Material Offense Is a Crime of Child Abuse

The Fourth Circuit has denied in part and dismissed in part a petition for review filed by a Bangladeshi native and Canadian citizen who was found removable based on a New Jersey conviction involving child sexual abuse material. The respondent had pleaded guilty to knowingly storing or maintaining twenty-five or more items depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child using a file-sharing program that made the material available for searching or copying by other computers.

The Court held that the conviction categorically qualifies as a crime of child abuse under the INA. The Court focused on the version of the New Jersey statute in effect at the time of the criminal conduct, rather than a later amended version, and found that storing child sexual abuse material on a searchable file-sharing program creates a reasonable probability of harm to the children depicted. The Court also dismissed the challenge to the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for lack of jurisdiction.

The full text of Uddin v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241067.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Finds Matter of K- Inapplicable in Relief Context

The Fourth Circuit has determined that the procedural requirements of Matter of K- which relate to admissions to the elements of certain types of crimes - is inapplicable in the relief from removal context. Thus, the agency was not required to comply with K- before finding that an individual who admitted to using and selling drugs lacked good moral character and was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Court also noted that the concerns of K- did not apply when the non-citizen was represented by counsel and providing the admission under oath.

The full text of Diaz v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241062.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Finds that NC Prayer for Judgment Continued is Conviction

The Fourth Circuit has determined that a North Carolina prayer for judgment continued - following completion of court-directed community service - is a conviction for immigration purposes.

The full text of Gardner v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241553.P.pdf