The Tenth Circuit has upheld an Immigration Judge’s decision to only permit a non-citizen 15 days to complete and file an asylum application.
Viewing entries in
New Case Law
The Tenth Circuit has determined that the Board of Immigration Appeals improperly rejected a notice of appeal where the attorney did not sign the certificate of service line because the notice of appeal was submitted through ECAS, and thus, automatically served on Homeland Security.
The full text of Cortez v. Bondi can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111277109.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has rejected the agency’s analysis of family-based particular social groups. “Accordingly, we hold the BIA’s stated rule for family-based nexus claims is contrary to the INA because its categorical formulation runs counter to the INA’s ‘at least one central reason’ standard. But we find no error in the BIA’s ‘means-ends’ framing in its discussion of the INA’s motive requirement.”
“The BIA’s stated nexus standard improperly disallows mixed-motive claims. This unlawful standard governs a dispositive issue and appears in a published three-judge BIA opinion, so it serves as precedent in all agency-level proceedings involving the same issue.”
“When applied, this unlawful standard improperly requires the agency to ignore evidence in the asylum applicant’s favor. According to its plain terms, once the agency determines a persecutor is targeting members of a certain family as a means of achieving some other ultimate goal unrelated to the protected ground, the analysis stops, and family membership must then be incidental or subordinate to that other ultimate goal and therefore not one central reason for the harm—full stop. The BIA’s erroneous legal standard thereby deems some facts legally irrelevant: it requires the agency to disregard other possible motives as soon as the antecedent (“if”) condition is satisfied. As the C.R. family put it, under this new rule, ‘any record evidence establishing that family was at least one central reason for harm [i]s categorically insufficient for asylum seekers to meet their burden of proof in establishing nexus’ once an unprotected-ground related motive is found. We have rejected that analytical shortcut, as motives that are unrelated to protected grounds do not negate possible motives related to protected grounds.”
The full text of O.C.V. v. Bondi can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111288784.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that the 30 day filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) is a claims processing rule. The court further determined that “a denial of a timely motion to reconsider or motion to reopen may serve as the final administrative denial on a particular claim. If the motion is untimely, then the AAO decision is final.”
The full text of Villegas Sarabia v. Noem can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-50750-CV0.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that whether an attorney has rendered ineffective assistance of counsel requires an evaluation of whether counsel was “reasonably competent.” Noting that the petitioner’s counsel at trial proffered a particular social group that was “dead on arrival” under Fourth Circuit precedent, and failed to proffer two applicable and cognizable social groups identified by later counsel, the court determined that trial counsel did not act in a reasonably competent manner.
The full text of Guandique-de Romero v. Bondi can be found here:
The Fourth Circuit has remanded an asylum appeal, finding inadequate the agency’s determination that the particular social group was circular because it referenced the persecution suffered.
“Here, the BIA found that Guardado’s first PSG was impermissibly defined in a circular fashion by the harm to its constituent members. While we agree that a PSG cannot be defined exclusively by the harm its members face (i.e., the anti-circularity requirement), we join a growing consensus of our sister circuits in recognizing that the BIA cannot simply claim circularity in a perfunctory manner.” In other words, the BIA cannot make a conclusory judgment that a PSG is circular per se. In place of such a superficial quick look at the words used,’ the BIA must perform a substantive analysis: it must determine what underlying characteristics account for the fear and vulnerability’ of the group, and whether the society views those characteristics as distinct.
This substantive analysis is necessary for a host of reasons. First, although the cognizability of a proposed PSG presents a question of law, this question is analyzed through a fact-based inquiry made on a case-by-case basis. Second (and relatedly), whether a group exists independently of the harm alleged is not always so apparent and depends on the facts of the particular case. Third, we see no logic or reason behind the assertion that abuse cannot do double duty, both helping to define the group, and providing the basis for a finding of persecution. And finally, even if a PSG is largely defined by persecution, a group that exists independent of persecution is simply a group that shares an immutable characteristic other than the persecution it suffers.”
The full text of Hernandez Guarado v. Bondi can be found here:
The Fourth Circuit has determined that the illicit trafficking in firearms aggravated felony ground requires “unlawful trading or dealing in firearms.”
The full text of Alvarez Ronquillo v. Bondi can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that whether an asylum applicant has demonstrated extraordinary circumstances related to the delay in filing is a determination that cannot be reviewed by a federal court.
The full text of Real v. Attorney General can be found here:
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:
The Third Circuit has determined that good moral character - as required for cancellation of removal - is a mixed question of fact and law that a federal court can reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.
The full text of Sanchez v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Second Circuit has reaffirmed that a New York conviction for second-degree sexual abuse is a child sexual abuse aggravated felony.
The full text of Garcia Pinach v. Bondi can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/117ad671-34e9-4aaf-96ca-50888f6f73f9/42/doc/22-6421_opn
The Second Circuit has determined that a non-citizen can only apply for adjustment of status under section 209 of the INA if he still maintains his asylum status. The court reaffirmed that the Immigration Judge has the authority to defer termination of asylum in order to permit the non-citizen to file for adjustment.
The full text of Wassily v. Bondi can be found here:
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, has found that a green card holder did not meaningfully understand the consequences of his plea when his defense attorney told him that he was not an immigration lawyer and that he might need to hire one.
“Benitez testified that he did not understand that the narcotics charges he was pleading guilty to (possession for sales and transportation of a controlled substance) were aggravated felonies under federal law, which require mandatory deportation. Benitez’s testimony in this regard is bolstered by Reed’s testimony that he routinely advised noncitizen defendants to consult with immigration attorneys. Based on his testimony, Reed appeared to be wholly unaware of what constituted an aggravated felony under federal law. Reed also seemed to mistakenly focus on the fact that Benitez was pleading guilty to felony crimes rather than misdemeanor crimes; however, a state’s classification of crimes is not of paramount concern under federal immigration laws, the critical issue is whether the crime is an aggravated felony or not.”
The full text of People v. Benitez-Torres can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed a grant of protection under the Convention Against Torture to a bisexual Salvadoran with a criminal history and gang tattoos.
“The Immigration Judge did not clearly err in finding that the applicant is a bisexual criminal deportee with visible gang tattoos. Further, the Immigration Judge did not clearly err in finding that if the applicant is removed, he will likely be detained upon his arrival in El Salvador pursuant to the state of exception policy because he will be identified as a suspected gang member deported from the United States with numerous gang-related tattoos and a criminal history. The record establishes that the applicant has a serious criminal history in the United States, and the information about his criminal history would likely be shared with the Salvadoran Government through the Criminal History Information Sharing Program between the United States and El Salvador. Further, the evidence establishes a history of widespread detention of prior and suspected gang members in El Salvador.”
“In finding that the applicant would suffer harm satisfying the definition of torture in detention, the Immigration Judge relied heavily on statistical information and country conditions evidence showing that some detainees and suspected gang members have been subjected to mistreatment, torture, or death while in detention. However, the Immigration Judge relied on a relatively small number of anecdotal incidents of mistreatment or death that fall well short of supporting a clear probability of torture. Overall, out of a total prison population of approximately 95,000 detainees as of November 2022, the Salvadoran Government documented 90 deaths in custody, some of which were attributable to lack of access to medication. Even if the actual number of abuses and deaths is higher than that documented by the Salvadoran Government, the evidence still demonstrates that only a small percentage of detainees died out of the tens of thousands detained.”
“Moreover, the Immigration Judge’s finding that numerous detainees have died in detention does not establish that public officials caused those deaths or that the unspecified human rights abuses rise to the level of torture. The substandard prison conditions referenced by the Immigration Judge, which may include severe overcrowding and lack of food, do not amount to torture as a matter of law unless ‘specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.’”
The full text of Matter of A-A-F-V- can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed a grant of protection under the Convention Against Torture to a Russian citizen who was supportive of Ukraine and who had twice been detained by the FSB, finding that the record supported the Immigration Judge’s finding that the applicant might be detained and interrogated upon arrival in Russia, there was insufficient evidence that this treatment would rise to the level of torture.
The full text of Matter of E-Z- can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has affirmed the discretionary denial of relief to an individual arrested for driving under the influence after consuming 20 beers, when his 10-year-old son was in the car with him, and who has used two social security numbers not validly issued to him for employment and tax purposes. The BIA also noted that the applicant claimed relatives in Mexico as dependents on his tax return without acknowledging that the United States has a tax treaty with Mexico that actually permits this if the applicant is providing at least 50% of those relatives’ support.
The full text of Matter of Gonzalez Jimenez can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed a grant of protection under the Convention Against Torture to a severely mentally ill Haitian man, deemed incompetent in removal proceedings. The BIA noted that the expert witness “could not estimate how many criminal deportees were incarcerated or killed in 2022 or 2023. Anecdotal reports of some criminal deportees being indefinitely detained in torturous conditions are insufficient to establish that the respondent is more likely than not to have that experience.“ The BIA also noted that the prison officials in Haiti lack an understanding of mental illness. Therefore, “[t]he respondent’s failure to show that Haitian officials are intentionally and deliberately creating and maintaining the harsh detention conditions that he fears for the specific purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering warrants reversal of the grant of his application for CAT protection.”
The full text of Matter of S-S- can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed the grant of bond to a non-citizen recently convicted of aggravated assault, noting that the conviction involved “the applicant’s decision to engage in violent behavior against her partner by pouring alcohol on his back and setting him on fire using a cigarette. The victim sustained burns on his head, face, and torso and had to be placed in a medically-induced coma.”
The full text of Matter of C-M-M- can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a particular social group defined by the alien’s sex or sex and nationality, standing alone, is overbroad and insufficiently particular to be cognizable. The reasoning provided is pretty hollow. The BIA attempts to distinguish the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perdomo v. Holder by stating it predates the three part immutability-social distinction-particularity test laid out in Matter of M-E-V-G-, but the BIA established these three criteria in much earlier decisions that pre-date Perdomo. The BIA then fell back on its analysis that women of a particular nationality encompass too broad of a group with differing ages, socioeconomic statuses, etc. to be particularized. The BIA further concluded that recognizing a sex-based particular social group would impermissibly create a sixth protected group for asylum.
In a post-Chevron world, this decision just screams for a circuit court to roundly obliterate the absurdity of the BIA’s particular social group caselaw.
The full text of Matter of M-E-S-G- can be found here:
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1408366/dl?inline
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a District Court lacks jurisdiction over a challenge to USCIS’s authority to require U visa holders to submit medical exams with their adjustment of status applications under INA 245(m). The Court recognized that generally, USCIS has exclusive jurisdiction over 245(m) adjustment applications. Nonetheless, the Court suggested that “Cabello will be able to argue in any future removal proceedings before an IJ or later petition for review in a court of appeals that some adjudicator—the IJ, BIA, the court of appeals, or any or all of them—must be able to review her denial of § 1255(m) relief as a matter of due process.”
The full text of Cabello Garcia v. USCIS can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/07/22/23-35267.pdf