Viewing entries in
New Case Law

Comment

Ninth Circuit Denies DOJ's Motion to Dismiss Pro se PFR

The Ninth Circuit has denied the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss a pro se petition for review that misstated the date of the agency decision and failed to include the decision with the petition. “Here, the imperfections in Kazarian’s petition did not deprive the government of sufficient notice of his claim or prejudice the government. Even though Kazarian misstated the date of the challenged order as ‘07/16/25’ rather than ‘06/17/25,’ and he did not attach a copy of that order, as § 1252(c) requires, his petition and accompanying stay motion make clear that he seeks review of the BIA’s June 17, 2025, decision upholding his removal order. The government had no trouble finding that ruling and filing it on the docket.”

The full text of Kazarian v. Bondi can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/11/18/25-4427.pdf

Comment

Comment

Ninth Circuit Reaffirms Jurisdiction to Review Exception to One Year Filing Deadline

The Ninth Circuit has reaffirmed that it has jurisdiction to review whether changed circumstances excuse the late filing of an asylum application. The Court also affirmed the denial of an administrative closure motion because the applicant had multiple DUI convictions, which weighed against a grant of discretion.

The full text of Ruiz v. Bondi can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/12/22/23-1095.pdf

Comment

Comment

Seventh Circuit Rejects Expansion of 1225 Detention Authority

The Seventh Circuit appears to have rejected the agency’s determination that any individual who entered without inspection is subject to mandatory detention under 8 USC 1225.

“The question is whether § 1225(b)(2)(A) covers any noncitizen who is unlawfully already in the United States as well as those who present themselves at its borders. For their part, Plaintiffs highlight a host of cases where courts have held that ICE’s authority to detain a noncitizen discovered within the country derives from § 1226(a) and not from § 1225(b). Based upon the text and structure of the two provisions, we believe that Plaintiffs have the better argument on the current record.”

The court did note that its decision was based on a preliminary record, leaving open the possibility that the government could better develop the record to support its argument.

The full text of Castanon-Nava v. Department of Homeland Security can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2025/D12-11/C:25-3050:J:Lee:aut:T:op:N:3465102:S:0

Comment

Comment

Sixth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Appeal for Failure to File Brief with the Same Attorney Address as Notice of Appearance

The Sixth Circuit has reversed the denial of an appeal for failure to file a brief, when the non-citizen did timely file a brief, but it contained an address for her attorney that was different than was provided on the Notice of Appearance. “[N]othing in the BIA Practice Manual, notice of appeal form, or regulations say that this address needed to match the address provided on the attorney’s notice of appearance or that failing to do so might result in rejection of the brief.”

The full text of Pineda-Guerra v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0329p-06.pdf

Comment

Comment

Sixth Circuit Finds Age of Child Should be Ascertained at time of IJ's Decision on Cancellation of Removal

The Sixth Circuit has determined that when a child is under 21 at the time an Immigration Judge grants cancellation of removal for nonlawful permanent residents, but ages out during the pendency on appeal filed by DHS, the child’s age remains the same as it was on the date of the judge’s decision. It appears this applicant was detained at the time of the cancellation grant, and thus, was not subject to the visa backlog for most cancellation applicants. As such, it is unclear what would happen if the child was under 21 on the day of the merits hearing, and the judge put the applicant in the queue for a cancellation number, and the child aged out before the number was issued.

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

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0315p-06.pdf

Comment

Comment

Fifth Circuit Permits Admission of Uncertified Criminal Records, Finds Texas Conviction for Indecency with a Child to be Deportable Offense

The Fifth Circuit has concluded that the certification requirements in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(C) are not mandatory and has also determined that a Texas Conviction for indecency with a child - sexual contact is a crime of child abuse.

The full text of Campuzano v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60575-CV0.pdf

Comment

Comment

BIA Finds Administrative Closure was Inappropriate for SIJS Petitioner

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge erred by granting administrative closure to an applicant for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) who did not provide prima facie evidence of eligibility. “Submitting the juvenile court order is particularly important to establishing prima facie eligibility because we otherwise have no way of knowing whether the respondent is subject to a juvenile court order that satisfies the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c)(1) and (d)(3) and whether a competent court or agency made the best-interest determination required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c)(2)(i).”

“Moreover, even if the respondent had established eligibility for special immigrant juvenile classification, the indeterminate and likely lengthy period of time until he would be eligible to adjust status if his petition were ultimately approved by USCIS also strongly militates against administrative closure.3 The priority date for the respondent’s visa petition is April 23, 2025. As explained above, visas for special immigrant juveniles are only currently available to aliens who filed their petitions prior to July 1, 2020. Considering the extensive, nearly 5-year gap between the currently eligible priority date and the respondent’s priority date, it is not realistic to expect the respondent to become eligible for relief from removal based on his special immigrant juvenile petition within a ‘reasonably short period of time.’ Thus, we conclude that administrative closure based on the respondent’s potential eligibility for adjustment of status at some remote time in the future is inappropriate.”

The full text of Matter of Cahuec Tzalam can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1417396/dl?inline

Comment

2 Comments

BIA Limits IJ Review of Asylum Cooperative Agreement

The Board of Immigration Appeals has limited an Immigration Judge’s review of the applicability of an asylum cooperative agreement (ACA). Under the regulation, an Immigration Judge is required to “determine whether under the relevant [ACA] agreement the alien should be removed to the third country, or whether the alien should be permitted to pursue asylum or other protection claims in the United States.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(h)(1). If an alien is “subject to the terms of” one or more ACAs and has not demonstrated that the safe third country bar does not apply, the Immigration Judge shall order the alien “removed to the relevant third country in which the alien will be able to pursue his or her claims for asylum or protection against persecution or torture under the laws of that country.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(h)(4).

“In applying the safe third country bar, the authority delegated to Immigration Judges by the regulation is limited to determining whether any of the conditions discussed in 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(h)(2) apply so as to render the relevant ACA inapplicable to the particular respondent. Immigration Judges do not have authority to make the determination required under section 208(a)(2)(A) of the INA as to whether ‘the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure’ in the third country because the Attorney General has expressly reserved that statutory authority. Similarly, Immigration Judges lack authority to determine whether it is in the public interest for an alien subject to an ACA to pursue asylum in the United States because section 208(a)(2)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(A), ‘reserves to the Secretary [of Homeland Security] or [her] delegates the determination whether it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.’” “Immigration Judges may not require DHS to demonstrate that an ACA country of removal is willing to accept a respondent who is subject to the terms of an ACA.”

“[I]f a respondent subject to an ACA claims a fear of persecution or torture in a relevant third country, but has no substantial connection to that country, an Immigration Judge should typically be able to resolve the applicability of the safe third country bar without conducting a full evidentiary hearing.”

What the Board didn’t discuss is the fact that Honduras has only agreed to accept 10 people per month under the ACA. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/25-625-Honduras-Migration-and-Refugees-JIP.pdf. Thus, requiring IJs to order asylum applicants removed to Honduras without any proof that they will be accepted by Honduras, effectively reads the right to apply for asylum out of the statute.

The full text of Matter of C-I-M-G- & L-V-S-G- can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1416811/dl?inline

2 Comments