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

D.C. Circuit Holds White House Shooter's Property-Destruction Conviction Was a Crime of Violence

The D.C. Circuit has affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate a firearm-during-a-crime-of-violence conviction obtained against a man who fired multiple rounds at the White House, holding that his underlying conviction for willfully and maliciously injuring a dwelling within federal jurisdiction categorically involves the use of physical force against another's property.

Tracing the statute's roots to nineteenth-century arson law and the common-law offense of malicious mischief, the Court held that injuring a dwelling requires material impairment inflicted intentionally and for a wrongful purpose, and that the Supreme Court's decisions in Johnson v. United States and Delligatti v. United States establish that intentionally causing such impairment necessarily involves the use of physical force. The Court also held the statute's historical pedigree confirms it reaches only injury to someone else's property, not one's own, satisfying the force clause's requirement that the property belong to "another."

The full text of United States v. Ortega-Hernandez can be found here: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/09/24-3023-2190849.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Noncitizen Must Be Allowed to Testify Before Being Bound by Counsel's Pleading Admission

The Ninth Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Mexican man whose attorney's written pleading admitted that he entered the country without inspection, holding that the agency abused its discretion by refusing to let him testify that the admission was factually incorrect before denying his motion to amend the pleading.

The Court held that under BIA and circuit precedent, a noncitizen may withdraw a formal attorney admission by proving it untrue, and that the immigration judge's summary denial of the motion to amend, without allowing any testimony on the point, deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to make that showing. The Court also held the BIA impermissibly usurped the immigration judge's factfinding role by independently concluding, based on a cold record, that the petitioner's account conflicted with other evidence, and remanded for the immigration judge to hear live testimony and resolve the credibility question in the first instance.

The full text of Urias-Gaxiola v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/02/22-1474.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Agency Cannot Demand Corroboration for a Credible Motion to Reopen an In Absentia Order

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan man ordered removed in absentia after arriving five minutes late to his hearing because of a flat tire, holding that the agency erred by requiring him to corroborate his account with documentary evidence and by faulting him for not submitting a formal affidavit.

The Court held that pro se petitioners need not submit a formal affidavit, and that because motions to reopen are decided without a hearing, the agency must accept a petitioner's account as true unless it is inherently unbelievable, without requiring independent corroboration. The Court remanded for the agency to reconsider the motion under the correct evidentiary standard.

The full text of Trigueros Quizar v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/04/24-4847.pdf

Eighth Circuit Holds Equitable Tolling Unavailable for the Petition for Review Deadline

The Eighth Circuit has dismissed a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan man challenging only the denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review a standalone CAT order and that, in any event, his petition was untimely by roughly five years measured from his final administrative removal order.

The Court held that a CAT order never merges into a final order of removal and so cannot independently support jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), joining the Eleventh and Ninth Circuits. Splitting from the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, the Court also held that the thirty-day filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a mandatory claims-processing rule not subject to equitable tolling, reasoning that Congress's use of "must" and "not later than" and its goal of expediting removal for noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies rebut the ordinary presumption favoring tolling.

The full text of B.P. v. Blanche can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/09/252778P.pdf

Eighth Circuit Holds It Lacks Jurisdiction Over a Standalone Negative Reasonable Fear Finding

The Eighth Circuit has dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a petition for review filed by a Mexican woman challenging an immigration judge's affirmance of an asylum officer's negative reasonable fear determination, which barred her from pursuing withholding-only proceedings after her prior removal order was reinstated.

The Court held that a decision finding no reasonable fear neither concludes that the noncitizen is deportable nor disturbs the validity of the underlying reinstated removal order, so it does not merge into or constitute a final order of removal reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). The Court expressly disagreed with a contrary Third Circuit majority decision and noted that the petitioner had chosen not to separately petition for review of the reinstatement order itself.

The full text of Sebastian-Perez v. Blanche can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/09/251691P.pdf

Eighth Circuit Holds Texas Robbery Conviction Is Not a Sentencing Guidelines Crime of Violence

The Eighth Circuit has vacated a felon-in-possession sentence enhanced based on a prior Texas robbery conviction, holding that the offense does not qualify as a crime of violence because it can be committed with a reckless mental state.

The full text of United States v. Benavidez can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/09/252497P.pdf

Seventh Circuit Holds Wisconsin Child Neglect Conviction Is Categorically a Crime of Child Abuse

The Seventh Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican woman found ineligible for cancellation of removal based on a Wisconsin misdemeanor conviction for neglecting a child, holding that the offense is a categorical match to the federal removability ground for a crime of child abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

Joining the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits, the Court held that the federal ground should be read as a single, unified category requiring only a culpable mental state of at least criminal negligence and an act or omission creating a reasonable probability of harm to a child. Because Wisconsin's statute requires proof of intentional conduct, a higher mens rea than the federal floor, and does not require that the child actually suffer any injury, the Court held the state offense sweeps no more broadly than the federal ground and denied the petition.

The full text of Reynoso-Salgado v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D09-01/C:23-2628:J:Jackson-Akiwumi:aut:T:fnOp:N:3601340:S:0

Fifth Circuit Affirms Denial of Cancellation and VAWA Special Cancellation Based on Unreviewable Factual Findings

The Fifth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Nigerian man seeking both ordinary cancellation of removal based on his current wife's medical conditions and special VAWA cancellation based on abuse by a prior wife, holding that the agency's hardship and battery-or-extreme-cruelty determinations were supported by substantial evidence.

Joining several sister circuits, the Court adopted a substantial-evidence standard for reviewing both the exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship determination under ordinary cancellation and the battery-or-cruelty and hardship determinations under special VAWA cancellation, following the Supreme Court's reasoning in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi. Applying that standard, the Court held the record did not compel a finding that the petitioner's current wife would face hardship beyond what is ordinarily expected from removal, and that his prior wife's mistreatment, including name-calling, minor burns, and threats to report him to immigration authorities, did not rise to the level of battery or extreme cruelty required by the statute.

The full text of Okene v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60559-CV0.pdf

Third Circuit Denies Fourth Attempt to Reopen a 2011 Removal Order Based on a 2023 Circuit Decision

The Third Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Dominican lawful permanent resident seeking, for the fourth time, to reopen a removal order that became final in 2011, holding that a change in law is never a basis for statutory reopening and that his separate motion for reconsideration was untimely by roughly thirteen years.

The Court held that the text of the statutory reopening provision requires "new facts" proven through evidentiary material, not a subsequent judicial decision interpreting an existing statute, and that permitting equitable tolling of that avenue based on later case law would collapse the deliberate distinction Congress drew between reopening and reconsideration. The Court also held that a recent Second Circuit decision interpreting the New York drug statute underlying the petitioner's removal order was not the kind of extraordinary circumstance that could excuse his years-late reconsideration motion, and that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary denial of sua sponte reopening.

The full text of Aristy-Rosa v. Attorney General can be found here: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/251490p1.pdf

Third Circuit Grants En Banc Rehearing on Jurisdiction to Review Standalone CAT Claims

The Third Circuit has granted the government's petition for rehearing en banc and vacated its earlier panel decision holding that the court has jurisdiction to review a CAT-only claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), setting the case for argument in October before the full court.

The order denies the petitioner's own rehearing petition but grants the government's, reopening the question that has split circuits and produced pointed disagreement within the Third Circuit itself, including a recent concurrence in a separate case arguing that no statutory basis exists for reviewing a CAT-only petition absent a challenge to the underlying final order of removal. Petitioner must file a supplemental brief responding to the government's arguments by September 21.

The full text of Laureano v. Attorney General can be found here: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/242433po.pdf

First Circuit Denies Cancellation of Removal Where Child's Asthma Was Treatable

The First Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran father seeking cancellation of removal based on hardship to his two U.S. citizen children, one of whom suffers from asthma, holding that the immigration judge properly applied the BIA's hardship factors and that her underlying factual findings about the severity and treatability of the child's condition were unreviewable.

The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to revisit the judge's factual findings that the son's asthma was under control and that the father failed to show he could not obtain or afford treatment in El Salvador, but retained jurisdiction to confirm the judge had not simply ignored the medical evidence. Because the judge expressly discussed the son's medications, hospitalizations, and the family's finances before concluding that the cumulative hardship fell short of the exceptional and extremely unusual standard, the Court found no legal error and denied the petition.

The full text of Espinoza Benitez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-2029P-01A.pdf

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

Ninth Circuit Reverses Adverse Credibility Finding Rooted in Translation Difficulties

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by an Angolan opposition-party activist and his family, holding that the agency's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence because it rested on trivial inconsistencies and disjointed testimony attributable to translation difficulties rather than any lack of veracity.

The Court held that minor variations in describing the exact location of an injury sustained during a chaotic police attack, an ambiguous asylum-application phrase that did not actually contradict later testimony, and apparent nonresponsiveness that instead reflected the petitioner's evident confusion amid garbled interpretation could not support an adverse credibility finding under the totality of the circumstances. The Court also held the agency committed legal error in denying CAT relief by overlooking country-conditions evidence tying the petitioner's political party membership to a particularized risk of torture and by failing to recognize that his family's months spent in hiding did not show a viable option for internal relocation.

The full text of Mbueno-Vita v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/28/24-5472.pdf

Ninth Circuit Rejects "Quantitative Evidence" Requirement for CAT Claims

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran man seeking to reopen proceedings to submit new evidence of torture under El Salvador's "state of exception," holding that the BIA erred by effectively requiring him to produce statistical or quantitative evidence of his risk of torture rather than considering all relevant evidence as the CAT regulations require.

The Court held that CAT's implementing regulations direct the agency to consider all evidence relevant to future torture, including credible testimony, expert reports, and country-conditions evidence, and that requiring quantitative proof imposes a nearly insurmountable burden given that repressive governments have strong incentives to suppress reliable torture statistics. The Court also held the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to two of the petitioner's three expert reports, and that his individualized evidence, including his tattoos, criminal history, and rival-gang associations, compelled the conclusion that he showed a reasonable likelihood of establishing eligibility for CAT protection in a reopened proceeding.

The full text of Parada Calderon v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/28/25-2204.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Mis-Mailed Notice of DHS's Appeals Violated Detained Noncitizen's Due Process Rights

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Jamaican man twice granted withholding of removal by an immigration judge, holding that his due process rights were violated when the BIA mailed notice of two separate DHS appeals to detention addresses that DHS itself had informed the agency were incorrect, excluding him entirely from both appellate proceedings.

The Court held that once DHS notifies the BIA that a detained noncitizen's location differs from the address used for mailing, the government's failure to take any additional reasonable steps to locate him renders the notice constitutionally inadequate, and that the petitioner was prejudiced because he never had the chance to argue that his misdemeanor marijuana conviction was not categorically a drug-trafficking aggravated felony under the categorical approach.

The full text of Jacques v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/28/23-3015.pdf