BIA Orders Detention Without Bond Where Respondent Drove Trucks Without a Valid Commercial License and Offered a Weak Sponsor

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a bond grant, holding that the respondent failed to meet his burden of showing he is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk. The Board found that the Immigration Judge clearly erred in concluding the respondent had no criminal history, because a Wyoming arrest for failing to stop at a port of entry on an interstate was relevant under Matter of Siniauskas and Matter of Guerra. It also found his work as a long-haul truck driver without a valid commercial driver's license, with an expired regular license, to be a danger, citing DHS evidence of highway accidents.

The Board held that even assuming he was not dangerous, he failed to show he was not a flight risk. He entered on a visitor visa and overstayed, had limited ties, and offered a sponsor who was an apparent friend, with no affidavit, financial documents, or verification of the claimed relationship, which deserves limited weight under Matter of Dobrotvorskii. No application for relief had been filed, and speculative future eligibility does not materially reduce flight risk under Matter of A-L-S-.

The full text of Matter of M-S-V- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1464431/dl?inline

BIA Holds Return to Country of Claimed Persecution Under Advance Parole Abandons the Entire Asylum Application, Including Withholding and CAT

The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that an asylum applicant who returns to the country of claimed persecution under advance parole is presumed to have abandoned the application under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.8(b), and that the abandonment extends to the entire application, including withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The presumption can be rebutted only by compelling reasons for the return.

The Board further held that deferral of removal under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a) is unavailable after abandonment, because it requires a mandatory denial of withholding, and that the respondent bore the burden on a mandatory bar, which turns on the record rather than counsel's argument. It rejected a due process claim based on late and unsigned service of DHS's closing argument for lack of prejudice, affirmed the denial of CAT protection on the merits in the alternative, and denied a motion to remand because the new country conditions evidence did not bear on abandonment. The appeal was dismissed.

The full text of Matter of M-R-I- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1464646/dl?inline

BIA Directs Immigration Judges to Generally Deny Asylum to Nationals of Highly Developed Democracies and Presumes EU Citizens Ineligible

The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that Immigration Judges should generally deny asylum, as a matter of discretion, to nationals of highly developed democratic countries, typically by pretermitting the application at the master calendar hearing and has extended that approach to withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The covered countries include all European Union members, EEA and EFTA states, several European microstates, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea. The Board also established a presumption that EU citizens are ineligible for discretionary asylum, rebuttable only on national security or foreign policy grounds, reasoning that EU citizens may reside indefinitely in any member state and that all member states are parties to the Refugee Convention.

The case involved a French and Gabonese dual national, and the Board held that a dual national must show a well-founded fear in each country of nationality. Because she was never harmed in France, the country designated for removal, she received no presumption of fear, and the Board found her fear not objectively reasonable based on speculation, a cousin's passport confiscation, and the safety of her sisters in France. The Board also rejected the Ninth Circuit's "disfavored group" analysis in Lapadat v. Bondi and found she had not shown she could not meet minimal residency formalities or obtain work, school, or health insurance elsewhere in the EU. The appeal was dismissed.

The full text of Matter of B-S-A-N- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1465531/dl?inline

BIA Overrules Sanchez Sosa, Holding There Is No Presumption in Favor of Continuances for Pending U Visa Petitions

The Board of Immigration Appeals has overruled Matter of Sanchez Sosa, holding that there is no presumption in favor of a continuance for a non-citizen with a prima facie approvable U visa petition pending before USCIS. The Board explained that Sanchez Sosa predated the Attorney General's decision in Matter of L-A-B-R- and did not consider visa availability, and that U visa wait times are now often years or decades because of the statutory cap and excess demand.

Applying the L-A-B-R- good cause framework, the Board found that the primary factors, the likelihood of obtaining the collateral relief and its effect on the outcome, favored the respondent, but that the secondary factors weighed more heavily against a continuance. The request was open-ended, the petition had been pending for years with no evidence of imminent adjudication, the respondent waited about 18 months after the qualifying crime to file, DHS opposed the continuance, and he had conceded removability and sought no other relief. The Board reaffirmed Matter of Quintero that non-citizens are not entitled to delay removal proceedings pending visa availability and dismissed the appeal.

The full text of Matter of L. Ramirez can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1466591/dl?inline

Tenth Circuit Holds Courts May Review USCIS's Determination That a Person Was Not a Refugee at Admission, Creating Circuit Split

A divided Tenth Circuit has reversed the dismissal of a suit challenging USCIS's termination of a refugee's status, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of the agency's determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(4) that a person was not a refugee at the time of admission. The earlier panel opinion for the plaintiffs had been vacated after the Supreme Court decided Mullin v. Doe, and the parties were asked to brief that decision.

The majority reasoned that terminating refugee status is a two-step process: the first step, whether the person was a refugee at admission, is mandatory and nondiscretionary, while the second, whether to terminate anyway, is discretionary. The jurisdictional bar reaches only the discretionary step. The court distinguished Patel, Bouarfa, and Doe, characterizing the refugee determination as a "preliminary" rather than "subsidiary" predicate. It acknowledged that this creates a split with the Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits.

The full text of Mukantagara v. Mullin can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111520406.pdf

Eleventh Circuit Holds Florida Attempted Manslaughter Is Not a Crime of Violence Under the Guidelines

The Eleventh Circuit has vacated a felon-in-possession sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that Florida attempted manslaughter is not a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). The court concluded that Florida attempt can be committed without the use of physical force, such as in an attempted manslaughter-by-procurement scenario.  This is a federal sentencing decision rather than an immigration case, but it applies the categorical approach used in removability analysis.

The full text of United States v. Johnson can be found here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202114144.pdf

Eighth Circuit Holds Changed Conditions in The Gambia Rebutted Presumption of Future Persecution

The Eighth Circuit has denied a petition for review from a Gambian national who overstayed a student visa and sought asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge found that he had suffered past persecution but held that the government rebutted the resulting presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, and the Board affirmed in a short decision.

The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding of a fundamental change in circumstances, pointing to the Barrow government's reforms, the removal of senior officials from the Jammeh era, a truth and reconciliation commission, relaxed speech restrictions, and the return of exiles. Outstanding arrest warrants and isolated arrests of protesters did not compel a different result. The court denied humanitarian asylum because the mistreatment, though "deplorable," was not "particularly atrocious," held that withholding and CAT relief fail where asylum fails on the same evidence, and declined to consider voluntary departure and burden-shifting arguments that were not exhausted before the Board.

The full text of Jatta v. Blanche can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/10/243033P.pdf

Eighth Circuit Denies Petition From Honduran Mother and Son, Finding Prejudice Lacking From Assumed Procedural Errors

The Eighth Circuit has denied a petition for review from a Honduran mother and her son whose applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture were denied by an Immigration Judge and affirmed by the Board. The petitioners argued that procedural errors by the Immigration Judge violated due process. The court assumed there were errors without deciding the question, but held that the petitioners failed to show prejudice, since the mother conceded Honduran citizenship and offered only speculation about evidence she might have presented.

The court also rejected the proposed particular social group of "Honduran citizens who refused to comply with gang demands" for lack of particularity and social distinction and held that generalized opposition to gang activity does not establish an imputed political opinion under INS v. Elias-Zacarias. Because asylum failed, withholding failed as well. On CAT, the mother never reported gang activity to the police, so officials were not shown to be aware of the threat, and generalized evidence of criminal infiltration of Honduran institutions did not establish government acquiescence.

The full text of Alvarenga v. Blanche can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/10/252780P.pdf

Sixth Circuit Denies Stay of Removal to Ghana, Holding Third-Country Removal Claims Are Likely Foreclosed by the D.V.D. Class Action

The Sixth Circuit has denied an emergency motion to stay the removal of a Nigerian citizen to Ghana, a third country, in a published order. The petitioner was ordered removed to Nigeria in 2013 but granted withholding of removal as to Nigeria. Under DHS's March 2025 policy implementing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(E)(vii), the government may remove a non-citizen to a third country that has provided credible diplomatic assurances without further procedures, and the government said Ghana had done so. The petitioner argued that removal without individualized process violated the INA, the APA, and due process.

The court held that she was unlikely to succeed because her claims are essentially those litigated in the D.V.D. v. DHS nationwide class action, of which she is a member, and absent class members generally cannot relitigate a failed class claim in an individual suit. The court found the irreparable harm evidence in equipoise, since her country conditions evidence was dated or generalized while Ghana's assurances were credible, and held that the government's interest and the public interest in executing a decade-old removal order favored denying the stay under Nken v. Holder.

The full text of Ojukwu v. Lyons can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0282p-06.pdf

Sixth Circuit Upholds ACCA Enhancement Based on Texas Burglary Convictions Over Dissent

A divided Sixth Circuit has affirmed a 377-month sentence imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act, holding that burglary under Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a)(3) is an indivisible offense that substantially corresponds to generic burglary. The majority reasoned that under Texas case law the completed or attempted felony, theft, or assault supplies the intent element, so the statute does not reach conduct broader than generic burglary, joining the Fourth, Eighth, and en banc Fifth Circuits. This is a federal criminal case rather than an immigration case, but it involves the categorical approach used in removability analysis.

The full text of United States v. Mixon can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0278p-06.pdf

Fourth Circuit Vacates BIA's Denial of Reopening Where New Death Threats Showed Nexus to Family-Based Particular Social Group

The Fourth Circuit has granted a petition for review and remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals, holding that the Board abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen an asylum case based on new death threats. The petitioner's asylum claim was based on persecution on account of membership in her husband's immediate family. After the Immigration Judge denied relief, she received threatening notes from suspected gang members calling her a "snitch" for reporting her husband's abduction. The Board denied reopening, the Fourth Circuit vacated, and the Board denied reopening again on remand.

The court held that the Board gave too much weight to the Immigration Judge's earlier findings, which predated the threats, and too little to the new evidence. The government conceded that gang members likely sent the notes, and the court found that the threats were intertwined with the petitioner's family ties. Relying on Cruz v. Sessions and Zavaleta-Policiano v. Sessions, it held that nexus can exist even where the persecutor has a stated non-family purpose, and it distinguished Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, where the petitioner merely happened upon a crime. A credible death threat can itself constitute persecution, and the Board's failure to consider the full context amounted to disregarding important aspects of the claim.

The full text of Fajardo-Rivas v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251280.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Holds South Carolina First-Degree Assault and Battery Remains a Crime of Violence Under Circuit Precedent

The Fourth Circuit has affirmed a 24-month sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release, holding that its earlier decision in United States v. Mack still controls and that South Carolina first-degree assault and battery is a "crime of violence" under the Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant argued that the South Carolina Supreme Court's 2024 decision in State v. Clemons undermined Mack, but he did not raise the issue in the district court, so review was for plain error.

The panel explained that Clemons addressed different offenses and only suggested, without holding, that first-degree assault might be committed recklessly. Because one panel cannot overrule another absent untenable authority, and the statute is divisible under Mathis, the district court did not plainly err. This is a federal sentencing decision rather than an immigration case, but it applies the categorical approach that frequently arises in removability analysis.

The full text of United States v. Owens can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/254469.P.pdf

Third Circuit Holds Loper Bright Does Not Displace Precedent Deferring to BIA on "Sexual Abuse of a Minor," and Finds No Age-Gap Requirement

The Third Circuit has held that Loper Bright did not unsettle its earlier decisions deferring to the Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretation of "sexual abuse of a minor" as an aggravated felony, and that a New York misdemeanor conviction for second-degree sexual abuse involving a child under 14 categorically qualifies. The petitioner, a Bangladeshi lawful permanent resident, was found removable on that basis and denied protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The court explained that Loper Bright ended prospective Chevron deference but preserved statutory stare decisis for prior holdings, so Restrepo and Cabeda remain binding absent en banc review or a contrary Supreme Court decision. It then held that the federal generic offense tracks 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a)(8), that the New York statute's range of conduct falls within it, and, as a matter of first impression, that the generic offense requires no age differential between the participants. Relying on Borden, it also found the statute's mental state requirement matches the generic offense. The court dismissed the removability challenge for lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) and denied the CAT petition, finding substantial evidence that the petitioner, who had no high-profile role in the BNP, was unlikely to be tortured, and that any error in the Board's notice of changed conditions in Bangladesh was harmless.

The full text of Islam v. Attorney General can be found here: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/251101p.pdf

First Circuit Affirms Dismissal of H-1B Physician's Challenge to Expedited Removal, Citing Jurisdiction-Stripping Provisions

The First Circuit has affirmed the dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of a habeas petition brought by a Lebanese physician in H-1B status who was placed in expedited removal at Boston Logan Airport in March 2025 and had her visa revoked at the port of entry. After her release, she amended her petition to seek a declaration that the expedited removal order was void because the officers who issued it were not validly appointed, along with a hearing before an Immigration Judge and relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The court held that she was an "applicant for admission," so expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) applied, and that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(i) bars review of expedited removal orders unless an exception in § 1252(e)(2) applies. Under § 1252(e)(5), review through the § 1252(e)(2)(B) exception is limited to whether an order "in fact was issued and whether it relates to the petitioner." Because the physician challenged the validity of the order rather than whether it was issued, the exception did not apply. The court rejected her Suspension Clause argument for similar reasons, relying on Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, and did not reach mootness or the merits of the Appointments Clause claim.

The full text of Alawieh v. Mullin can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-2238P-01A.pdf

First Circuit Denies Asylum Petition, Finding Threats Without Physical Harm Did Not Compel a Finding of Past Persecution

The First Circuit has denied a petition for review from a Honduran couple whose asylum claim rested on death threats and harassment from gang members. The Immigration Judge denied asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, although it reversed the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility finding as to the petitioner's partner. Only the asylum denial was pursued on appeal, and the court treated the withholding claim as waived.

Reviewing the persecution findings for substantial evidence, the court held that the record did not compel a finding of past persecution. The partner was never physically harmed, the gang members declined to hurt anyone, and it was unclear who was behind an alleged kidnapping attempt. The court distinguished Javed v. Holder, where threats were accompanied by violence. On future persecution, Facebook messages and harassment did not establish an objectively reasonable fear under Martínez-Pérez v. Sessions, and general country conditions evidence could not substitute for particularized evidence of risk to these petitioners.

The full text of Alvarado-Hernandez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1447P-01A.pdf

BIA Imposes Reciprocal Discipline on Attorney Suspended by the Ninth Circuit Over AI-Generated Brief Errors

In a precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals has imposed a six-month reciprocal suspension on an attorney who had already been suspended by the Ninth Circuit after filing a brief containing errors traced to generative AI use. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a) and (b), a certified record of a federal court suspension triggers immediate suspension before the Board and creates a rebuttable presumption that equivalent discipline is warranted, which the attorney can overcome only with clear and convincing evidence of a due process violation, an "infirmity of proof," or a "grave injustice."

The Board rejected each of the attorney's arguments for avoiding reciprocal discipline. It held that the Ninth Circuit had properly inferred, from circumstantial evidence including an implausible explanation and a pattern of similar conduct, that the attorney knew his brief contained fabricated or erroneous material. And distinguishing hardship from injustice under Matter of Kronegold, the Board emphasized that professional conduct standards do not bend based on the tools an attorney uses to prepare a filing — discipline for AI-related errors, including citations to nonexistent cases, is ordinary professional regulation rather than an outlier result.

The full text of Matter of Mike Singh Sethi can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463666/dl?inline

BIA Holds It Loses Jurisdiction Upon Remand and a New Hearing Is Not Required Unless the Remand Order Says So

The Board of Immigration Appeals, in a precedent decision clarifying Matter of Patel, has held that it does not retain jurisdiction over a case after remanding the record to an Immigration Court, and that an Immigration Judge is not required to hold a new hearing on remand unless the Board's order expressly directs one. Where a remand is unqualified, jurisdiction returns entirely to the Immigration Judge, who may conduct whatever further proceedings the remand order calls for, consistent with the INA and the regulations.

Applying that rule, the Board found no error in the Immigration Judge's decision to issue a new ruling denying withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture without convening an additional hearing, since the Board's remand order did not require one and the respondent had already received a full hearing before the case went up on appeal. The Board concluded that reassessing the existing record without reopening the evidentiary record did not violate due process or exceed the scope of the remand.

The full text of Matter of C-M-H-H- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463836/dl?inline

BIA Vacates Bond Based on Undisclosed Prior Asylum Grant Obtained Under a Different Identity

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a $12,000 bond grant, holding that the respondent failed to meet his burden of showing he is not a flight risk. The Board found it highly significant that the respondent had omitted from his asylum application the fact that he had passed through Greece and previously obtained asylum there under a different identity, noting that the omission implicated his credibility, his true identity, potential statutory bars to relief, and his willingness to commit immigration fraud.

The Board also noted that the Immigration Judge had already denied the respondent's asylum application, and that the fraud revelations made his prospects on appeal "remote." While acknowledging favorable factors such as steady employment, a fixed address, and the absence of a criminal record, the Board concluded these could not overcome serious doubts about his trustworthiness and likelihood of complying with a removal order and vacated the bond.

The full text of Matter of Y-M-B- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463051/dl?inline

BIA Denies Cancellation of Removal to Longtime Resident, Citing False Testimony About Grandson's Death

The Board of Immigration Appeals has affirmed the denial of cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a) to a lawful permanent resident of fifty years who was found removable based on a child abuse conviction, upholding the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility finding and discretionary denial of relief. The respondent testified that her grandson died from a ruptured appendix and rib fractures caused by CPR, but the Board found this account materially inconsistent with police reports, medical records, and news coverage establishing that the child died of acute peritonitis caused by blunt force trauma and drug exposure, with rib fractures at various stages of healing.

Applying de novo discretionary review under Matter of C-V-T-, the Board weighed the respondent's substantial positive equities — her decades of residency, thirteen U.S. citizen children, and roughly twenty-seven grandchildren — against her involvement in money laundering and alien smuggling, her child abuse conviction, three substantiated child welfare investigations, and what the Board called her "devious and disingenuous" efforts to minimize her responsibility for her grandson's death. Citing Matter of Richards and Matter of Burbano, the Board held that a lack of candor of this kind is a significant adverse discretionary factor that outweighed her favorable equities and dismissed the appeal.

The full text of Matter of Leticia Cornejo-Aguilar can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463461/dl?inline

BIA Holds Bad Advice From a Non-Lawyer Does Not Excuse a Missed Hearing

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained a DHS appeal and reversed an Immigration Judge's sua sponte rescission of an in absentia removal order, holding that a respondent's claim that a non-attorney misled him about the need to appear at his hearing did not amount to the "exceptional circumstances" required to reopen. The respondent, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, argued he reasonably relied on the individual's assurances, but the Board noted that both of the respondent's own continuance motions listed him as proceeding pro se and bore his signature.

Consistent with Matter of Z-R-C-N-, the Board reiterated that bad advice from a non-lawyer does not excuse a failure to appear and emphasized that sua sponte authority to reopen a case must be reserved for truly exceptional situations, not invoked routinely. The motion to reopen was denied and the in absentia removal order reinstated.

The full text of Matter of K-K-U-J- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1462356/dl?inline