Fifth Circuit Finds Citizenship Claim Time-Barred After Earlier Passport Denial

The Fifth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a citizenship action brought by a man who claimed that he was born in Laredo, Texas. The Department of State had repeatedly denied his passport applications based on concerns about his birth records, including a suspicious birth attendant and a conflicting Mexican birth certificate.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s claim under 8 USC 1503(a) was time-barred because the five-year limitations period began with the first final passport denial, not with later reapplications. The Court also held that the APA and mandamus claims were barred because section 1503(a) provided the exclusive adequate remedy, and affirmed dismissal of the constitutional claims.

The full text of Cortez v. Rubio can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20339-CV0.pdf

Fourth Circuit Finds Denial of Continuance Violated Statutory Right to Counsel

The Fourth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Honduran asylum applicant whose attorney withdrew shortly before key deadlines in her removal proceedings. After the withdrawal, the Immigration Judge denied her request for more time and required her to proceed without counsel.

The Court held that the denial of a continuance violated the respondent’s statutory right to counsel under 8 USC 1229a(b)(4)(A). The Court found that the BIA failed to account for the practical effect of the intervening document deadline when evaluating how much time the respondent had to secure new counsel. The Court vacated the removal order and remanded for the BIA to address prejudice in the first instance.

The full text of Rodriguez-Solis v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241937.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Finds Virginia Firearm During Robbery Conviction Is Not a Crime of Violence

The Fourth Circuit has determined that a Virginia conviction for use of a firearm during robbery does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence under the federal sentencing guidelines. The Court was bound by its precedent holding that Virginia robbery can be committed by threats that do not necessarily require violent physical force.

The Court rejected the government’s argument that the firearm-use element cured the defect in the robbery predicate. Because the predicate offense still did not categorically require violent force, the Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. Although the case arose in the sentencing context, the categorical approach analysis may be useful in immigration cases involving Virginia robbery-related convictions.

The full text of United States v. Scott can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/254048.p.pdf

Third Circuit Denies Withholding Claim by Equally Divided Vote

The Third Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a lawful permanent resident from the Dominican Republic who sought withholding of removal after a serious drug trafficking conviction. A majority of the panel agreed that it had jurisdiction after Riley (even though the petition did not mount a challenge to the underlying reinstatement order, only the denial of relief) and agreed that CAT protection was properly denied, but it fractured on the withholding issue.

Because the panel divided evenly on whether Matter of Y-L- lawfully provides a valid mandatory presumption that certain drug trafficking offenses are particularly serious crimes, the BIA’s ruling stood. The Court’s denial does not create precedential law on the validity of Matter of Y-L-, leaving the question for another day.

The full text of Laureano v. Attorney General can be found here: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/242433p.pdf

Second Circuit Requires But-For Eligibility Determination for Material Support Waiver Process

The Second Circuit has granted in part and denied in part a petition for review filed by a Sri Lankan respondent who was found to have provided material support to the LTTE by translating during an interrogation. The BIA treated the material support bar as dispositive of the respondent’s asylum, statutory withholding, and CAT withholding claims, and therefore declined to reach the merits of those claims.

The Court held that the BIA erred by failing to determine whether the respondent would be eligible for asylum or statutory withholding of removal but for the material support bar. Without that determination, the respondent could not pursue a discretionary waiver of the material support bar from DHS, which frustrated the statutory and regulatory waiver scheme. However, the Court denied the petition as to CAT protection, finding that substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that the respondent had not shown that he would more likely than not be tortured if returned to Sri Lanka.

The full text of Sufiyan v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/22-6392_complete_amd_opn.pdf

First Circuit Finds Massachusetts Carjacking Is Not Categorically a Crime of Violence

The First Circuit has determined that Massachusetts carjacking does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence under the career-offender guideline. The defendant challenged his enhanced sentence, arguing that the Massachusetts offense can be committed without the level of violent force required by the federal force clause.

The Court agreed, finding that Massachusetts assault can be committed by an offensive touching and that the carjacking statute’s additional elements did not necessarily require violent physical force. Although the case arose in the criminal sentencing context, the categorical analysis may be useful to immigration practitioners assessing Massachusetts carjacking convictions in removal proceedings.

The full text of United States v. Pimental can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1910P-01A.pdf

First Circuit Rejects Family-Based Nexus Claim Arising from Paternal Abuse

The First Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran respondent who sought protection based on years of physical and verbal abuse by his father. The respondent argued that the abuse was connected to his family membership or to a proposed particular social group.

The Court found that substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that the father’s abuse was motivated by domestic and financial disputes, not by a protected ground. The Court also rejected the respondent’s argument that his credible testimony excused the need for corroboration, and found that he had waived the government-protection issue before the BIA.

The full text of Vasquez-Chavez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1306P-01A.pdf

First Circuit Upholds Hardship Denial in Cancellation Case

The First Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan father who sought cancellation of removal based on hardship to his two U.S. citizen daughters. The petitioner argued that his daughters’ anxiety, sleepwalking, and eye conditions satisfied the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard.

The Court found that the agency’s hardship determination was supported by the record. The medical evidence did not compel a finding of qualifying hardship, the children’s conditions appeared stable, and the petitioner’s savings undercut his financial hardship claim. The Court also noted that care was reasonably available in Guatemala.

The full text of Argueta Castillo v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1297P-01A.pdf

First Circuit Remands Ineffective Assistance Claim After Missed BIA Briefing Deadline

The First Circuit has determined that the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner’s attorney missed the BIA briefing deadline in her appeal from the denial of adjustment of status. The BIA found that the petitioner had not complied with Lozada (though it did not specify how she failed to comply) and faulted the petitioner for not filing her brief with her motion to reopen (even the BIA had previously denied a motion for a late filed brief and returned the brief to counsel).

The Court denied the petition for review of the underlying adjustment denial, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of relief. However, the Court granted the petition as to reopening, finding that the BIA failed to explain its Lozada ruling, failed to address a substantial prejudice argument, and failed to account for the fact that the late brief had been before the Board at several points. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

The full text of Buckley v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1957P-01A.pdf

BIA Vacates CAT Deferral Where Gang and Cartel Harm Was Speculative

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a Mexican respondent did not establish eligibility for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture based on feared harm from the Sureños and the CJNG. The respondent claimed that he would be tortured because he had cooperated with U.S. authorities in 2009, but the Board found that the record did not establish a clear probability of torture.

The Board emphasized that the respondent had lived in Mexico for approximately 13 years after his cooperation without physical harm or direct contact from the feared actors, had relocated within Mexico without problems, and had not shown that any later threats or violence were connected to his cooperation beyond speculation. The Board also found that generalized evidence of cartel violence, impunity, and corruption did not establish that Mexican officials would consent to or acquiesce in the respondent's torture.

The full text of Matter of J-E-L- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1439331/dl?inline

BIA Finds Serious Nonpolitical Crime Bar Turns on Most Recent Arrival

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the words "arrival" and "arrived" in the serious nonpolitical crime bars refer to a respondent's most recent arrival in the United States. The respondent, a lawful permanent resident, argued that the bar did not apply because the alleged human trafficking offense in Mexico occurred after his original admission as an LPR, even though it occurred before his most recent arrival in the United States.

The Board rejected that argument and concluded that the serious nonpolitical crime bar applied. The Board found serious reasons to believe that the respondent had committed the offense based on the Mexican arrest warrant, Interpol Red Notice, Form I-213, and the respondent's admissions. The Board also affirmed the denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion and upheld the denial of CAT protection.

The full text of Matter of C-P-Y- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1439601/dl?inline

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