BIA Rejects Particular Social Group of Married Mexican Women Unable to Leave Their Relationships

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the proposed particular social group of "married Mexican women who are unable to leave their relationship" is not cognizable because it is circularly defined and lacks particularity. The Board also held that a lawful marriage cannot be presumed merely because two people cohabited or had children together.

The Board vacated the grant of withholding of removal and remanded for further consideration of CAT protection. The Board found that the Immigration Judge had relied on overruled precedent, made insufficient findings regarding whether the respondent was legally married under applicable law, and clearly erred in finding that the Mexican government was unable or unwilling to protect her and that internal relocation was unreasonable.

The full text of Matter of V-A-B- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1439986/dl?inline

Ninth Circuit Finds English-Language Notice of Address Obligations Satisfies Due Process

The Ninth Circuit has determined that DHS is not constitutionally required to translate a Notice to Appear into a respondent's native language in order to advise the respondent of the obligation to update her address. The petitioner argued that her in absentia removal order should be reopened because the English-language notice did not adequately advise her, in Spanish, that she had to update her address with the immigration court.

The Court rejected that argument, finding that English-language written notice can satisfy due process when it is reasonably calculated to inform the respondent of her obligations. Because the petitioner moved without updating her address, the later hearing notice mailed to her last known address was sufficient.

The full text of Urquia-Yanez v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/05/08/25-1136.pdf

Ninth Circuit Applies Substantial Evidence Review to Persecution Determination

The Ninth Circuit has determined that substantial evidence review applies to the agency's conclusion that undisputed facts do not rise to the level of persecution. The Court explained that, under Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, the agency's application of the INA to established facts is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, abrogating any prior Ninth Circuit precedent that may have applied de novo review.

Applying that standard, the Court upheld the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection to a Sikh man from Punjab who supported the Mann Party. The Court found that the record did not compel a conclusion that threats, two beatings, and a one-night police detention amounted to past persecution. The Court also held that the agency reasonably found that the petitioner could relocate within India, and rejected the argument that the agency was required to apply a special Mann Party relocation rule to all Sikh applicants from Punjab.

The full amended text of Singh v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/05/15/24-815.pdf

Seventh Circuit Rejects Withholding Claim by Indian Muslim Slaughterhouse Operator

The Seventh Circuit has dismissed in part and denied in part a petition for review filed by an Indian Muslim who sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the determination that the asylum application was untimely, because the petitioner did not develop any argument that recent Supreme Court authority had altered the Court's prior jurisdictional rule. The Court did note that a circuit split exists on this issue, and that it will eventually have to address it head on.

The Court also upheld the denial of withholding of removal. The petitioner's single beating, which resulted in minor injuries, did not compel a finding of past persecution, particularly where police stopped the attack and the business that allegedly motivated the harm was no longer operating. The Court further found that the agency reasonably determined that the petitioner could relocate within India.

The full text of Mohammed v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D05-05/C:25-1901:J:Scudder:aut:T:fnOp:N:3535996:S:0

Seventh Circuit Partially Affirms Release Order in Warrantless Arrest Consent Decree Case

The Seventh Circuit has determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in extending a consent decree governing warrantless civil immigration arrests in the Chicago Field Office by 118 days. The Court found that the extension was supported by the government's substantial noncompliance with the consent decree.

The Court also affirmed the November 13 release order as to class members for whom a determination had been made that they were arrested without a warrant in violation of 8 USC 1357(a) and the consent decree. However, the Court reversed the order to the extent it required the release of "potential class members" without individualized determinations, and to the extent it covered individuals arrested pursuant to I-200 warrants, defective or otherwise. The Court further concluded that the government lacked authority to place the individuals at issue, who were already inside the United States, in mandatory detention under 8 USC 1225(b)(2)(A). It should be noted, however, that only one judge reached the merits of the 1225 issue - the concurring judge declined to address it.

The full text of Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D05-05/C:25-3050:J:Pryor:con:T:fnOp:N:3535766:S:0

Sixth Circuit Finds Criminal Defense Counsel Need Not Advise Naturalized Citizens About Denaturalization Risk

The Sixth Circuit has determined that the Sixth Amendment does not require criminal defense counsel to advise a naturalized U.S. citizen that a guilty plea may create a risk of later civil denaturalization and removal. The petitioner, a naturalized citizen, argued that his guilty plea was constitutionally defective because his attorney failed to warn him that the conviction could later be used in denaturalization proceedings.

The Court rejected that argument, holding that denaturalization is a collateral civil consequence of a conviction, not a direct criminal penalty. The Court distinguished Padilla, explaining that deportation following a criminal conviction is uniquely intertwined with the criminal process, while denaturalization generally requires a separate civil proceeding and is not automatic. The Court therefore affirmed the denial of coram nobis relief.

The full text of United States v. Singh can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0130p-06.pdf

Sixth Circuit Finds Interior Arrests Are Governed by 8 USC 1226(a), Not Mandatory Detention Under 8 USC 1225(b)(2)(A)

The Sixth Circuit has determined that non-citizens arrested in the interior of the United States, years after entering without inspection, are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 USC 1225(b)(2)(A). Rather, the Court affirmed the district courts' grants of habeas relief and held that the petitioners were detained under 8 USC 1226(a), which permits bond. The Court also concluded that due process required individualized bond hearings for these non-citizens, rejecting the government's position that they could be detained without bond under the mandatory detention statute.

The full text of Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0139p-06.pdf

Fifth Circuit Finds Father-in-Law's Arrest Was Not a Changed Country Condition

The Fifth Circuit has determined that a Salvadoran respondent's untimely motion to reopen did not qualify for the changed country conditions exception. The respondent argued that he faced increased danger in El Salvador after his father-in-law, an alleged former MS-13 official, was arrested and extradited to the United States, causing MS-13 to believe that the father-in-law had cooperated with the FBI.

The Court found that the father-in-law's arrest and extradition were changes in the respondent's personal circumstances, not changed country conditions in El Salvador. Although the respondent may now face greater danger, the danger flowed from a family-specific development, rather than from a material nationwide change in conditions. The Court also rejected the respondent's request for equitable tolling, finding that he did not establish that former counsel's alleged ineffectiveness prevented him from timely filing the motion to reopen.

The full text of Prado-Majano v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60040-CV0.pdf

BIA Defines Political Opinion as Requiring a Connection to a Government or De Facto Government

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that disapproval of or opposition to criminal gangs is not sufficient to establish a political opinion under the INA. To establish a political opinion, the applicant must have an actual or imputed belief or conviction regarding a discrete cause that is tied to the government of a country, including a de facto government.

The Board rejected the argument that opposition to the Maras and their activities in El Salvador constituted a political opinion, finding that the record did not establish that gangs in El Salvador exercise actual sovereignty or control such that they constitute a de facto government. The Board also rejected the respondent’s gender- and family-based particular social group arguments under recent Board and Attorney General precedent, and affirmed the denial of CAT protection.

The full text of Matter of D-G-E-A- & N-G-G-E- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1436936/dl?inline

BIA Finds DACA Alone Does Not Warrant Termination of Removal Proceedings

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge erred in terminating removal proceedings based solely on the respondent’s receipt of DACA. Although the regulations permit discretionary termination where a respondent is the beneficiary of deferred action, the Board emphasized that the Immigration Judge must consider the reason termination is sought and the basis for any opposition to termination.

The Board remanded the case to a different Immigration Judge, finding reassignment appropriate to avoid the appearance of partiality or bias where DHS alleged that the Immigration Judge’s spouse, a member of Congress, had publicly advocated for the respondent.

The full text of Matter of Santiago-Santiago can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1437801/dl?inline

BIA Finds Immigration Judge Must Take Pleadings When Respondents Appear but DHS Does Not

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that when respondents appear at an initial master calendar hearing, but DHS does not, the Immigration Judge errs by terminating proceedings without first taking the respondents’ pleadings to the Notices to Appear. The regulations require the Immigration Judge to ask the respondents to admit or deny the factual allegations and charges. If the respondents deny the charges, or if issues of law or fact remain, the Immigration Judge must request the assignment of DHS counsel and receive evidence on the unresolved issues.

The full text of Matter of Arana Castillo can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1437856/dl?inline

BIA Finds FBI Letterhead Memorandum Warrants Significant Weight in Bond Proceedings

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an FBI Letterhead Memorandum indicating that a respondent is a potential national security risk warrants significant weight in bond proceedings. The Board sustained DHS’s appeal, vacated the Immigration Judge’s bond order, and ordered the respondent detained without bond.

The Board explained that dangerousness determinations in bond proceedings may consider national security concerns and need not be limited to evidence of prior criminal conduct. The Board also rejected the respondent’s argument that the FBI memorandum was inherently unreliable because it was unsigned and unsworn, noting that immigration proceedings are not governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and that government records prepared in the ordinary course of official duties carry strong indicia of reliability.

The full text of Matter of Shentu can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1438116/dl?inline

BIA Finds Immigration Judge Must Proceed In Absentia for Minors When Notice and Removability are Established

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that when respondents, including minor respondents, fail to appear for a hearing, and DHS has established proper notice and removability, the Immigration Judge lacks authority to administratively close the proceedings and must proceed in absentia. The Board rejected the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that it would violate the minor respondents’ due process rights to order them removed based on their mother’s failure to bring them to court, reaffirming that an adult relative who receives notice on behalf of a minor bears the responsibility to ensure the minor appears.

The Board further noted that the statutory remedy for seeking rescission of an in absentia order remains available to the respondents.

The full text of Matter of Orozco Becerra can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1438621/dl?inline

D.C. Circuit Affirms Injunction Against Summary Removal Procedures Under Presidential Proclamation

The D.C. Circuit has determined that sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) do not authorize the President to remove non-citizens who are already present in the United States through summary procedures that bypass the removal procedures established by the INA. The Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the Proclamation and implementing Guidance were unlawful to the extent they circumvented statutory removal procedures and prevented individuals from applying for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

“Statutory text, structure, and consistent Executive Branch and judicial recognition of the law’s constraints all lead to the same conclusion: Congress enacted the asylum statute, with narrow exceptions specified by statute, to grant all foreign individuals ‘physically present’ in the United States a right to apply for asylum and have their individual applications adjudicated. If the Government wishes to modify this carefully structured and intricate system, it must present those arguments to the only branch of government able to amend the INA: Congress.”

The Court also affirmed class certification as clarified by the stay panel and rejected the government’s argument that 8 USC 1252(f)(1) barred the district court’s injunctive relief or vacatur of the Guidance.

The full text of Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Mullin can be found here: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/04/25-5243-2170245.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds Marriage Fraud Bar Applies Even Without Filing for Immigration Benefits

The Ninth Circuit has determined that the marriage fraud bar applies when a non-citizen attempts or conspires to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws, even if no immigration benefit is ever sought based on that marriage. The court rejected the argument that 8 USC 1154(c)(2) requires the filing of an immigration application or petition, explaining that “if a noncitizen attempts or conspires ‘to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws,’ then the marriage fraud bar applies, full stop. Whether the noncitizen takes any further actions, such as marrying and filing for immigration benefits, is immaterial.”

The Court also determined that USCIS did not violate due process by relying on the non-citizen’s ex-wife’s sworn statement without producing her for cross-examination. Unlike in Ching v. Mayorkas, the ex-wife’s statement was not the only adverse evidence, the petitioners had multiple opportunities to respond, there was a dearth of evidence of the bona fides of the marriage, and the record contained independent evidence that the non-citizen had admitted paying his ex-wife to marry him “in order to get a green card.”

The full text of Hanan v. USCIS can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/27/24-6193.pdf

Ninth Circuit Recognizes First Amendment Rights of US Citizen when Non-Citizen Spouse is Denied Visa

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that a U.S. citizen’s First Amendment rights made be implicated when her non-citizen spouse is denied a visa. “Mandel’s central holding—that the government must offer a facially legitimate and bona fide reason when its inadmissibility determination implicates a U.S. citizen’s First Amendment rights—remains good law.” The court then concluded that “the consular officer’s belief that Sanchez is a member of a known criminal organization is sufficient to establish a facial connection to the statutory ground in question.”

“At no point has the government conceded that Sanchez’s tattoos played any role in the visa denial. Appellants would like us to assume that the tattoos were the true justification due to Sanchez’s lack of a criminal record and the consular officer’s alleged focus on his tattoos during the interview. But we are not privy to the full breadth of information available to the officer, as ‘information provided by law enforcement”’can encompass details not located in a formal record. For us to delve further into the particulars of the officer’s investigation would subvert the purpose of the facially legitimate and bona fide standard—a standard that affords even more deference to the government than rational basis review. In sum, the consular officer cited 3A2 and concluded that there was ‘reason to believe’ Sanchez is a member of a criminal organization after reviewing interview statements, law‑enforcement information, the immigration record, and all other submissions. For the purposes of our limited inquiry, the government has proffered a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.”

“Although this case presents some troubling allegations, there is not enough to conclude that the consular officer’s visa denial, which was reviewed by both a supervisor and the Department of State’s Visa Office, was made in bad faith. Appellants again point to the officer’s alleged focus on Sanchez’s tattoos during the interview, the government’s failure to identify a specific gang to which Sanchez belongs, and Sanchez’s lack of a prior criminal record. Greater detail about the basis for the consular officer’s determination would have satisfied our native curiosity, but Appellants have offered no direct evidence that the officer ignored contrary findings or relied on clearly erroneous facts, and we have no license to require further explanation from the State Department. For us to demand greater explanation would improperly interfere with the consular officer’s discretion over visa denials and subvert the design of the consular nonreviewability doctrine.”

The full text of Sanchez Gonzalez v. U.S. Department of State can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/30/23-4205.pdf

Seventh Circuit Finds that Number Bar Applies to MTR Based on Lack of Notice

The Seventh Circuit has determined that the statutory limitation permitting a non-citizen to file only one motion to reopen applies even if the subsequent motion to reopen is based on a lack of notice.

The full text of Coatl-Chiquito v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D04-30/C:25-1233:J:Kolar:aut:T:fnOp:N:3533378:S:0

Sixth Circuit Finds that 30-Day PFR Deadline is Subject to Equitable Tolling

The Sixth Circuit has determined that the 30-day filing deadline for a petition for review is subject to equitable tolling.

The full text of Oxlaj-Perez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0126p-06.pdf

Sixth Circuit Finds that Hardship Should be Reviewed under Substantial Evidence Standard

The Sixth Circuit has determined that it will review the agency’s hardship determination in a cancellation of removal case under the deferential substantial evidence standard.

The full text of Baltazar Us v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0125p-06.pdf

Fourth Circuit Finds Matter of K- Inapplicable in Relief Context

The Fourth Circuit has determined that the procedural requirements of Matter of K- which relate to admissions to the elements of certain types of crimes - is inapplicable in the relief from removal context. Thus, the agency was not required to comply with K- before finding that an individual who admitted to using and selling drugs lacked good moral character and was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Court also noted that the concerns of K- did not apply when the non-citizen was represented by counsel and providing the admission under oath.

The full text of Diaz v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241062.P.pdf