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

Ninth Circuit Requires BIA to Treat Motion Based on New Evidence as Motion to Reopen

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review where the BIA treated a motion to reopen as a motion to reconsider. The petitioner’s notice of appeal to the BIA was mailed by certified mail before the deadline but was not delivered for forty-two days, and the BIA dismissed the appeal as untimely.

The petitioner then filed a motion to reopen supported by new USPS tracking evidence showing the delay. The Ninth Circuit held that because the motion relied on evidence not before the BIA at the time of dismissal, the BIA was required to treat it as a motion to reopen, subject to the ninety-day deadline. The case was remanded for the BIA to apply the reopening standard to the equitable tolling request.

The full text of Garcia Corrales v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/24/24-6467.pdf

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

Tenth Circuit Denies Equitable Tolling for Untimely Motion to Reopen

The Tenth Circuit has denied a petition for review of the BIA’s denial of an untimely motion to reopen. The Salvadoran petitioner sought reopening based on additional evidence, including the detention of his partner in El Salvador, and argued that equitable tolling should excuse the late filing.

The Court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the petitioner failed to show due diligence or extraordinary circumstances. General assertions about detention, limited access to counsel, limited English, and limited legal resources were insufficient, particularly where the petitioner had previously pursued administrative and judicial review while pro se. The Court denied the petition, while granting in forma pauperis status.

The full text of Bonilla-Espinoza v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111444458.pdf

First Circuit Remands Ineffective Assistance Claim After Missed BIA Briefing Deadline

The First Circuit has determined that the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner’s attorney missed the BIA briefing deadline in her appeal from the denial of adjustment of status. The BIA found that the petitioner had not complied with Lozada (though it did not specify how she failed to comply) and faulted the petitioner for not filing her brief with her motion to reopen (even the BIA had previously denied a motion for a late filed brief and returned the brief to counsel).

The Court denied the petition for review of the underlying adjustment denial, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of relief. However, the Court granted the petition as to reopening, finding that the BIA failed to explain its Lozada ruling, failed to address a substantial prejudice argument, and failed to account for the fact that the late brief had been before the Board at several points. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

The full text of Buckley v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1957P-01A.pdf

Fifth Circuit Finds Father-in-Law's Arrest Was Not a Changed Country Condition

The Fifth Circuit has determined that a Salvadoran respondent's untimely motion to reopen did not qualify for the changed country conditions exception. The respondent argued that he faced increased danger in El Salvador after his father-in-law, an alleged former MS-13 official, was arrested and extradited to the United States, causing MS-13 to believe that the father-in-law had cooperated with the FBI.

The Court found that the father-in-law's arrest and extradition were changes in the respondent's personal circumstances, not changed country conditions in El Salvador. Although the respondent may now face greater danger, the danger flowed from a family-specific development, rather than from a material nationwide change in conditions. The Court also rejected the respondent's request for equitable tolling, finding that he did not establish that former counsel's alleged ineffectiveness prevented him from timely filing the motion to reopen.

The full text of Prado-Majano v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60040-CV0.pdf

Seventh Circuit Finds that Number Bar Applies to MTR Based on Lack of Notice

The Seventh Circuit has determined that the statutory limitation permitting a non-citizen to file only one motion to reopen applies even if the subsequent motion to reopen is based on a lack of notice.

The full text of Coatl-Chiquito v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D04-30/C:25-1233:J:Kolar:aut:T:fnOp:N:3533378:S:0

Ninth Circuit Finds that Soviet Citizen Acted Diligently in Seeking Post-Conviction Relief and Reopening

The Ninth Circuit has determined that an ethnic Armenian who entered the United States as a Soviet citizen acted diligently in seeking post-conviction relief within a few months of being notified that Armenia was accepting certain Soviet citizens and therefore, that she was in danger of being removed. “Contrary to the government’s position at oral argument, it is unreasonable to expect a ‘stateless’ individual to take affirmative steps to challenge removability when they do not face an immediate threat of removability.” “Instead, for individuals born during the Soviet era or who are otherwise deemed ‘stateless’ for purposes of removability, we hold that it is reasonable to expect that an individual will begin to take action to challenge removability only once that individual learns that they can be removed to a country and thus are no longer ‘stateless.’”

The full text of Eskilian v. Bondi can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/02/20-72157.pdf

Second Circuit Grants Reopening Based on Change in Law

The Second Circuit has determined that a deported LPR acted with diligence when he filed a motion to reopen or reconsider within 30 days of the Second Circuit determining that his conviction was not a removable offense.

The full text of Ramsay v. Bondi can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8ea3a373-602c-4410-a9b8-13d57d47d94e/3/doc/23-8121_opn.pdf

Ninth Circuit Rejects Per Se Rule that Traffic is Never Exceptional Circumstance

The Ninth Circuit has rejected a per se rule that traffic can never be an exceptional circumstance that excuses missing a hearing in immigration court.

“We have never adopted a rule that traffic (or any other circumstance) is per se unexceptional. And we reject any bright-line rules about what can or cannot qualify as an exceptional circumstance because the statutory test depends on the totality of the circumstances in each petitioner’s case.”

“And more to the point, the fifteen-minute cushion petitioners gave themselves did not cause their failure to appear. Petitioners were two hours late for their hearing, and it was the two major accidents causing a ten-mile backup that caused them to be late. Even if they gave themselves an extra ninety minutes to get to court, they still would have been late because of the severe traffic that morning. Exercising diligence does not mean a petitioner must predict the very ‘extraordinary circumstance’ they contend caused their failure to appear. The BIA must consider petitioners’ diligence based on what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances, without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.'“

The full text of Montejo-Gonzalez v. Bondi can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/02/05/21-304.pdf

Eighth Circuit Affirms Denial of IAC Claim

The Eighth Circuit has affirmed the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because the attorney failed to provide proof that his self-reported bar complaint was actually sent to the relevant disciplinary authorities.

The full text of Rodriguez Irias v. Bondi can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/02/251419P.pdf

Second Circuit Remands Motion to Reopen

The Second Circuit has remanded an untimely motion to reopen based on both post-conviction relief and a change in case law related to deportability. The “BIA abused its discretion in finding that Pinilla failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing his motion to reopen. In its decision, the BIA explained only that Pinilla was not entitled to tolling because he waited ‘approximately 2 years’ after New York revised its marijuana laws to file his motion. The agency’s stated justification is not the ‘minimum level of analysis’ that we require ‘if judicial review is to be meaningful.’ ‘[T]he test for equitable tolling, both generally and in the immigration context, is not the length of the delay in filing the [motion]; it is whether the claimant could reasonably have been expected to have filed earlier.’”

The full text of Pinilla Perez v. Bondi can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5b8de542-619b-4223-b191-466cb013720f/9/doc/23-6363_opn.pdf

BIA Denies Second MTR Based on VAWA Relief

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the statutory provision permitting the Attorney General to waive the 1-year time limitation on one motion to reopen pursuant to VAWA does not provide for a waiver of the numerical limitation on a second motion to reopen pursuant to VAWA.

The full text of Matter of B-S-H- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1418881/dl?inline

Sixth Circuit Finds Jurisdiction to Review VAWA-Based MTR

The Sixth Circuit has determined that it has jurisdiction to review whether a VAWA self-petitioner has established extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship to the applicant’s child, as required for a motion to reopen.

The full text of Sarkisov v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0316p-06.pdf

Fifth Circuit Measures Diligence from When Non-citizen Learned of Post-Conviction Relief

The Fifth Circuit, in evaluating whether a non-citizen exercised due diligence in moving to reopen his proceedings, has indicated the importance of the date he learned of the availability of post-conviction relief. The Court rejected the argument that diligence should be measured from when the post-conviction order was granted.

The full text of Arevalo v. Bondi can be found here:

www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60349-CV0.pdf

Fifth Circuit Finds that Equitable Tolling does not Apply to Numerical Limitations on Motions to Reopen

The Fifth Circuit has rejected the proposition that number bars are subject to equitable tolling. The Court did concede that the numerical bar is a claims processing rule and not a jurisdictional bar.

The full text of Garcia Morin v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60590-CV0.pdf

Third Circuit Construes Evidentiary Requirement for Motion to Reopen

The Third Circuit has determined that the regulatory requirement that a motion to reopen present new evidence, not previously available, refers to “evidence that becomes available only after the final hearing before the IJ,” “irrespective of whether the petitioner’s appeal to the BIA is then pending.”

The full text of Suchite-Salguero v. Attorney General can be found here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/241970p.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds that Conviction for Shooting at Inhabited Dwelling is CIMT

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a California conviction for shooting an inhabited dwelling is a crime involving moral turpitude. “California Penal Code section 246 requires an intentional shooting of a firearm, that is, the use of a deadly weapon, in circumstances that necessarily pose a significant risk of bodily harm to another. We hold that the BIA correctly concluded that section 246 categorically qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude.”

In addition, the Court determined that whether evidence is “new” for the purposes of a motion to reopen is a legal question over which the federals court have jurisdiction to review. The Court similarly concluded that it had jurisdiction to review whether an applicant has established a prima facie case for relief.

The decision also contained a detailed analysis regarding the petitioner’s competency and eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The full text of Lemus-Escobar v. Bondi can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/06/16/18-73423.pdf

An amended decision can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/11/10/18-73423.pdf

BIA Finds that Supplement to MTR is a Second MTR

The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that “[a] supplemental filing to a motion to reopen that raises claims that are fundamentally different from those raised in the original motion is treated as a separate motion.”

“The Board entered the final administrative order in these proceedings on July 30, 2021, and the respondent timely moved to reopen this decision on October 27, 2021. The respondent filed a ‘supplement’ requesting VAWA relief on February 6, 2023, over 18 months after our final order. The contents of these two filings are wholly unrelated. A motion claiming a respondent suffered battery or extreme cruelty by a spouse is fundamentally different from a motion claiming that spouse has petitioned for the respondent to become a lawful permanent resident or would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if the respondent were removed. Accordingly, we find the respondent’s ‘supplemental’ motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal under VAWA is in fact a second motion to reopen that was not timely filed within 1 year of the final administrative order of removal. “

The full text of Matter of D-E-B- can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1401736/dl?inline

First Circuit Remands MTR for Cancellation of Removal

The First Circuit has remanded a motion to reopen filed by applicants for cancellation of removal. “It is unclear whether the BIA concluded that (1) as a matter of fact, Petitioners failed to corroborate their assertions about the serious educational hardship L.C. would face in Guatemala, or (2) as a matter of law, L.C.'s claimed hardship would not be exceptional and extremely unusual even if it were corroborated.” “If the BIA meant to hold that Petitioners provided insufficient factual corroboration for their claim that L.C. would be deprived of an education in Guatemala, it did not explain its reason for so holding. In particular, the BIA does not appear to have addressed the salient aspects of the country conditions evidence that would seem to support the claimed hardship if considered in light of L.C.'s individual circumstances.”

The full text of Garcia v. Bondi can be found here:

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1296P-01A.pdf