These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries in
New Case Law
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that children age out as qualifying relatives for cancellation of removal when they turn 21 during an appeal filed by the Department of Homeland Security.
The full text of Matter of Arevalo-Vargas can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1431246/dl?inline
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a minor with an approved special immigrant juvenile petition had not demonstrated prima facie eligibility for relief where there is a 4-year delay in visa availability.
The full text of Matter of Z-R-C-N- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1431711/dl?inline
The Eighth Circuit has determined that the proper standard for reviewing the agency’s hardship determination in a cancellation of removal case is substantial evidence.
The full text of Alonso-Juarez v. Bondi can be found here:
The Seventh Circuit has certified the following question to the Kentucky Supreme Court: does Section 514.110 of Kentucky law (receipt of stolen property) requires something less than a subjective knowledge or belief that the property was stolen? More specifically, could a Kentucky jury convict a defendant under Section 514.110 merely by finding that a reasonable person would have known the property was stolen, even absent any evidence that the defendant deliberately avoided that knowledge? The answers to these questions will inform whether the conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony for immigration purposes.
The full text of Hassan v. Bondi can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D03-16/C:25-1049:J:Scudder:aut:T:op:N:3507655:S:0
The Fifth Circuit has rejected an argument that a Louisiana conviction for armed robbery is not a crime of violence because it can be committed recklessly.
The full text of United States v. Lanaute can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30266-CR0.pdf
The Second Circuit has determined that even when an applicant is ineligible for asylum due to the material support for terrorism bar, the agency must analyze whether it would have otherwise granted the request, so that the applicant can proceed with requesting any available discretionary waivers of the terrorism bar from USCIS.
The full text of Sufiyan v. Bondi can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/7bf51ec7-61b5-4a34-b756-7bdaeb7cc713/4/doc/22-6392_complete_opn.pdf
The Supreme Court has determined that a federal court reviewing the agency’s determination that an asylum applicant did suffer serious enough harm to qualify as past persecution must apply the deferential substantial evidence standard. The Court clarified that the standard applies to both the review of the correctness of the underlying factual findings as well as the question as to whether these findings meet the legal definition of persecution.
“Our decisions in Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U. S. 209 (2024), and Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U. S. 221 (2020), are not to the contrary. In those cases, we held that a mixed question of law and fact could qualify as a ‘question of law’ exempt from §1252(a)’s bar on judicial review. But unlike §1252(b), §1252(a) does not speak to the standards of review for removal orders; rather, it addresses a court’s ability to review removal orders at all. As a result, whether a given issue is treated as a question of law exempt from the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions tells us nothing about the type of review the court must afford to that issue under other provisions of the statute.”
The full text of Urias-Orellana v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-777_9ol1.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined there is no duress exception tot he serious nonpolitical crime bar to asylum and withholding of removal.
The full text of Matter of D-G-B-L- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1423546/dl?inline
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver is available only to applicants who commit fraud at their time of entry, not at the stage of a subsequent adjustment of status.
The full text of Matter of Forjoe can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1429116/dl?inline
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that when a “U nonimmigrant visa is not immediately available to a respondent and the record does not establish that one is likely to be available in the reasonably near future, administrative closure over DHS’ objection is inappropriate.” The Board further noted that a six month period of administrative closure is presumptively reasonable.
The full text of Matter of Ibarra Vega can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1429421/dl?inline
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that “where an expert witness’ background and testimony reflect a reluctance to consider contrary evidence and an inability to impartially assess matters involving the removal of persons to a given country, an Immigration Judge errs in giving the testimony of that witness significant weight.” In this case, the Board cited an expert witness’s co-authoring of an article that called for the cessation of all deportations of criminal non-citizens to Haiti.
The full text of Matter of D-J-L- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1430046/dl?inline
The Administrative Appeals Office has concluded that the regulations “allow USCIS to recognize a withdrawal while making further findings of fact relevant to future benefit requests, including fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact.“
The full text of Matter of Texperts, Inc. can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1430151/dl?inline
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that “[w]here a presumption of a future threat to life or freedom applies, an Immigration Judge cannot rely on generalized crime and widespread violence unrelated to the original claim to find the presumption has not been rebutted, particularly where other evidence suggests a fundamental change in circumstances such that a respondent will no longer be harmed on account of a protected ground.”
The full text of Matter of R-B-E- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1430191/dl?inline
The Eleventh Circuit has determined that a Florida conviction attempted armed robbery is not a violent felony because it requires only an attempt to threaten, which falls short of an attempt to use violent force. “To secure a conviction for attempted armed robbery in Florida, the government can prove that a defendant, carrying a weapon, formed an intention to take money or property by force or threat and took one overt act toward that end. This burden falls short of requiring the government to prove that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force.”
The full text of United States v. Lightsey can be found here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202013682.reh.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has again foreclosed an APA challenge to the denial of waiver under 8 USC 212(d)(14) requested in connection with a U visa, finding that the waiver application is necessarily one committed to the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
“In rejecting his constitutional challenge to the INA, we emphasize that we do not decide today whether, or to what extent, Plaintiff can raise his claims in removal proceedings. Nor do we decide whether, if the immigration courts cannot review his claims, such a result would violate the Constitution. What we do decide is that, to the extent Plaintiff has a viable challenge to the discretionary decisions of the immigration authorities, the only place he can advance that claim is in removal proceedings and a subsequent petition for review in the court of appeals.”
The full text of Chairez v. Mayorkas can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/05/24-4137.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that a federal district court has jurisdiction over a purely legal question related to statutory eligibility for asylum for the beneficiary of an I-730, even though ultimately, USCIS has discretion whether to grant the I-730. In this case, the legal question was whether the asylee spouse could qualify for asylum through the I-730 process when she was subject to a reinstated removal order.
The full text of Ortez Reyes v. USCIS can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251391.P.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the written frivolous warnings on the I-589 application are sufficient to give notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous asylum application. There is no requirement that a judge provide oral warnings and withdrawing the application does not preclude a frivolous finding.
The full text of Matter of S-M-H- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1425081/dl?inline
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that there is no presumption that a single misdemeanor does not qualify as a particularly serious crime, but rather, the analysis in Matter of N-A-M- governs the determination.
The full text of Matter of E-A-S-O- can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has again undermined the testimony of an expert witness, finding it insufficiently supported.
“First, the expert did not profess any direct knowledge of the extent to which China tortures those convicted of drug trafficking crimes abroad, nor did he articulate any past professional experience with death penalty cases in China or the way in which China implements the death penalty. Second, the expert noted in his report that ‘there is a paucity of statistics on torture and executions in China’ and ‘little official information on the handling of expatriated drug-traffickers.’ He also did not provide any meaningful estimations on the number of individuals sentenced to death or the percentage of those convicted of crimes who were sentenced to death. Although he cited a law journal article stating that 95 percent of death sentences in China involve drug crimes, intentional homicide, and robbery, this statistic was not broken down further as to how likely a person convicted of drug crimes was to receive the death penalty or the likelihood of that the death penalty would be inflicted on individuals, like the respondent, who were convicted of drug trafficking in another country.”
“The relevance and the reliability of an expert witness’ opinions are significantly undercut when those opinions are informed by anecdotal or inaccurate facts or data. Because the expert relied on two anecdotes that are not analogous to the respondent’s circumstances to support his prediction that the respondent would be detained and tortured due to his drug trafficking conviction in the United States, the Immigration Judge clearly erred in assigning significant weight to the expert’s opinion without reasonably considering the apparent deficient underlying factual basis.”
The BIA concluded that “[t]he general evidence of China’s harsh penalties for individuals convicted of drug trafficking crimes committed in China and the use of torture in Chinese prisons is insufficient to establish that the respondent will more likely than not be detained and tortured, extralegally or otherwise, based on his drug trafficking conviction in the United States.“
The full text of Matter of G-M-I- can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that “[a] respondent’s valid marriage to a United States citizen entered into after a removal order does not constitute an exceptional situation warranting sua sponte reopening of removal proceeding.”
The full text of Matter of Yadav can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1426906/dl?inline
