Supreme Court Allows Returning LPR to Be Treated as Applicant for Admission Based on Commission of CIMT

The Supreme Court has held that the government need not have clear and convincing evidence at the border that a returning lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating him as seeking admission under 8 USC 1101(a)(13)(C)(v). The respondent, a lawful permanent resident, temporarily traveled abroad while a New Jersey trademark-counterfeiting charge was pending and was paroled into the United States on return.

The Court held that the government’s burden is satisfied in the later removal proceedings, not necessarily at the port of entry. The respondent’s later guilty plea supplied the necessary proof that he had committed the offense for purposes of the admission classification. The Court vacated the Second Circuit’s decision and remanded, leaving unresolved whether the trademark-counterfeiting conviction is a CIMT.

The full text of Blanche v. Lau can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-429_h3ci.pdf

BIA Denies Reopening Where Forced-Abortion Claim Lacked Reasonably Available Corroboration

The Board of Immigration Appeals has denied a Chinese respondent’s motion to reconsider and motion to reopen after the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The respondent claimed that she had been forced to undergo an abortion in China and argued that the agency improperly required corroboration.

The Board held that the Immigration Judge properly required corroboration of credible but unpersuasive testimony and properly found that corroborating evidence of the alleged forced abortion was reasonably available. The Board also rejected the respondent’s ineffective assistance claim, finding that counsel did not act unreasonably by relying on a certified translation of evidence submitted by prior counsel.

The full text of Matter of Y-H-L- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1446391/dl?inline

BIA Finds ACA Bar May Be Resolved Without Evidentiary Hearing Absent Individualized Harm Evidence

The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that an evidentiary hearing is generally unnecessary before applying the safe-third-country bar when the respondent is subject to an asylum cooperative agreement and the record contains no evidence of individualized risk of harm in the ACA country. The case involved a Cuban respondent subject to the U.S.-Ecuador ACA.

The Board sustained DHS’s interlocutory appeal and found that generalized country conditions evidence was insufficient to require a full evidentiary hearing. The Board also emphasized that Immigration Judges lack authority to review the government’s decisions regarding acceptance under an ACA or the adequacy of procedures in the ACA country. The case was remanded for an expeditious ACA determination.

The full text of Matter of A-C-M- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1446476/dl?inline

BIA Finds Pending I-130s Do Not Justify Deferring Asylum Pretermission Ruling

The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that potential eligibility for collateral relief is not a valid reason to deny or postpone consideration of DHS’s motion to pretermit asylum applications. The respondents, Belizean nationals, had pending I-130 petitions, and the Immigration Judge denied DHS’s pretermission motion without reaching its merits.

The Board sustained DHS’s interlocutory appeal. It held that possible future eligibility for another form of relief does not affect the legal sufficiency of an asylum application, particularly where the Immigration Judge lacks authority to adjudicate the collateral relief at issue. The case was remanded for the Immigration Judge to decide the pretermission motion on its merits.

The full text of Matter of T-A-G- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1449081/dl?inline

BIA Says Withholding Grant Matters in Discretionary Asylum Analysis

The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that a grant of withholding of removal is an important factor in deciding whether asylum may be denied as a matter of discretion. The respondent, a Cameroonian national, received withholding of removal but was denied asylum, adjustment of status, and cancellation of removal in discretion based in part on multiple DUI convictions and related driving offenses.

The Board explained that a grant of withholding mitigates the risk of future persecution because the respondent cannot be removed to the country where persecution is likely. As a result, the discretionary asylum analysis may give less weight to future persecution risk than in cases where withholding has not been granted. The Board dismissed the appeal and affirmed the discretionary denials.

The full text of Matter of P-A-C- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1447056/dl?inline

BIA Finds Pennsylvania Drug Trafficking Conviction Is a Particularly Serious Crime

The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that a Pennsylvania conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance was a particularly serious crime. The respondent, a transgender woman from Jamaica, had previously been granted asylum, and DHS appealed.

The Board found that the offense involved serious drug trafficking conduct, including a significant sentence and circumstances showing a large packaged quantity of marijuana and attempted concealment from police. The Board also denied CAT protection, finding that past harm was inflicted by private actors and that the respondent had not shown likely government acquiescence in future torture. The Board sustained DHS’s appeal and ordered removal to Jamaica.

The full text of Matter of G-L-C- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1449211/dl?inline

BIA Finds Family Hardship Insufficient for 212(h) Waiver

The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed a grant of a 212(h) waiver and adjustment of status to a Barbadian respondent. The respondent relied on hardship to his U.S. citizen wife and children and lawful permanent resident mother, but DHS appealed the Immigration Judge’s grant of relief.

The Board held that the emotional and financial difficulties the respondent’s family would experience did not rise to extreme hardship. The Board also found that the respondent’s serious and lengthy criminal history, including convictions and non-conviction conduct, outweighed his equities in the discretionary analysis. The Board sustained DHS’s appeal and ordered him removed to Barbados.

The full text of Matter of Best can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1449611/dl?inline

BIA Finds Safeguards Adequate for Incompetent Applicant in Withholding-Only Proceedings

The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that an incompetent applicant in withholding-only proceedings received adequate safeguards where a qualified representative was appointed and provided meaningful assistance. The Honduran applicant had serious mental health diagnoses and sought withholding of removal and CAT protection based on fear of harm in Honduras.

The Board held that termination was unavailable in withholding-only proceedings and that the safeguards provided satisfied due process. The Board also found that the applicant did not establish a particularized risk of future persecution based on mental illness, or that he was more likely than not to be tortured. The appeal was dismissed.

The full text of Matter of C-L-R- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1449436/dl?inline

D.C. Circuit Vacates Stay of Expedited Removal Expansion

The D.C. Circuit has vacated a district court order staying DHS’s 2025 expansion of expedited removal. The challenged designation expanded expedited removal to the maximum statutory scope, covering unlawfully present noncitizens who cannot show at least two years of continuous presence in the United States.

The Court held that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their due process challenge. The Court rejected any argument that government officials must advise non-citizens about the two years presence requirement or that the failure to follow the law by individual immigration officers invalidates the expansion itself. The Court therefore vacated the district court’s nationwide APA stay. The Court left open the question of what, if any, remedy exists to address an officer who issues an expedited removal order even when a non-citizen can show two years of continuous presence, recognizing that the statutory scheme governing judicial review of expedited removal orders does not permit a court to examine if the non-citizen has been present for two years.

The full text of Make the Road New York v. Mullin can be found here: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/06/25-5320-2179963.pdf

Eleventh Circuit Dismisses Standalone CAT Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction

The Eleventh Circuit has held that it lacks jurisdiction to review a standalone CAT denial where the petition for review does not challenge the underlying final order of removal. The petitioner, a Jamaican citizen with aggravated felony convictions, sought review only of the BIA’s denial of CAT deferral and expressly did not challenge DHS’s final administrative removal order.

The Court held that CAT review is available only through review of a final order of removal. Because the petition did not challenge that order, the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit’s approach and disagreed with the Third Circuit’s contrary view.

The Court also held that the petitioner’s subsequent briefing on due process violations in his removal order did not cure the fact that the challenge was not raised in his pro se petition for review.

The full text of Hayles v. U.S. Attorney General can be found here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202410516.pdf

Ninth Circuit Requires BIA to Treat Motion Based on New Evidence as Motion to Reopen

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review where the BIA treated a motion to reopen as a motion to reconsider. The petitioner’s notice of appeal to the BIA was mailed by certified mail before the deadline but was not delivered for forty-two days, and the BIA dismissed the appeal as untimely.

The petitioner then filed a motion to reopen supported by new USPS tracking evidence showing the delay. The Ninth Circuit held that because the motion relied on evidence not before the BIA at the time of dismissal, the BIA was required to treat it as a motion to reopen, subject to the ninety-day deadline. The case was remanded for the BIA to apply the reopening standard to the equitable tolling request.

The full text of Garcia Corrales v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/24/24-6467.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds California Child Cruelty Conviction and Oregon Child Neglect Conviction are Crimes of Child Abuse

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican respondent found removable based on a California conviction for cruelty to a child under Penal Code section 273a(a). The Court considered the meaning of the INA’s crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment ground after Loper Bright, without deferring to the BIA under Chevron.

The Court held that the INA provision covers child endangerment and does not require actual injury to the child. It also held that the provision requires at least criminal negligence and conduct creating a substantial risk of physical or mental harm, and that it is not limited to parents or guardians. The Court concluded that California Penal Code section 273a(a) categorically fits within the removability ground.

The Ninth Circuit also denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican respondent found ineligible for cancellation of removal based on Oregon child neglect convictions. The respondent had pleaded guilty after leaving young children home alone for about forty-five minutes, during which a two-year-old left the apartment.

Applying the same framework announced in the consolidated Leon-Briviesca decision, the Court held that Oregon Revised Statutes section 163.545 categorically qualifies as a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment under the INA. The conviction therefore rendered the respondent removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The full text of Leon-Biviesca v. Blanche and Rivera-Mendoza v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/25/21-70107.pdf

Sixth Circuit Rejects Ineffective Assistance Claim for Failure to Comply with Lozada

The Sixth Circuit has dismissed in part and denied in part consolidated petitions filed by a Liberian lawful permanent resident ordered removed after firearms convictions and an embezzlement conviction. Prior counsel had conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal, which was denied in discretion.

The Court dismissed the direct challenge to removability for lack of exhaustion (the direct appeal to the agency did not challenge his removability) and dismissed the discretionary cancellation challenge for lack of jurisdiction. The Court also denied the ineffective assistance claim because the respondent did not satisfy Lozada’s procedural requirements; photocopies of unsent letters and unfiled grievance forms were insufficient to show that a bar complaint had actually been filed and prior counsel had actually be notified of the charges against him. The Court further upheld the BIA’s denial of the government’s unsupported motion to reopen and dismiss, since it failed to explain what circumstances had changed since issuance of the final removal order that would justify reopening.

The full text of Morris v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0182p-06.pdf

Sixth Circuit Finds BIA Appeal Deadline Subject to Equitable Tolling but Denies Tolling

The Sixth Circuit has held that the thirty-day deadline to appeal an Immigration Judge’s decision to the BIA is not jurisdictional and may be equitably tolled. The petitioner, a Guinean woman with sickle-cell disease, sought tolling after missing the BIA appeal deadline following hospitalizations and a delay in retaining new counsel.

The Court nonetheless denied the petition for review. It held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the petitioner failed to show due diligence throughout the full delay, including the period after her hospitalizations and the delay after she retained counsel. The Court left open the exact deferential standard of review for equitable tolling determinations.

The full text of Baro v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0173p-06.pdf

First Circuit Denies Reconsideration in Brazilian Domestic Violence Asylum Case

The First Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Brazilian family after the BIA denied reconsideration of its dismissal of their asylum appeal. The lead petitioner’s claim was based on past abuse by her former partner, the father of her oldest child.

The Court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting reconsideration. The proposed group of Brazilian women unable to leave relationships with the fathers of their children failed on the record because the petitioner had left the relationship, obtained a restraining order, entered a new relationship, and had no contact with the abuser for many years. The Court also upheld the BIA’s rejection of the family-based proposed group as insufficiently particular.

The full text of Alves-Pains v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1895P-01A.pdf

BIA Declines Sua Sponte Reopening Based on Post-Order Equities

The Board of Immigration Appeals has denied an untimely motion to reopen filed nearly ten years after a final removal order. The respondent relied on equities acquired after the removal order, including marriage to a U.S. citizen, a pending spousal petition, a U.S. citizen child, and hardship to his family.

The Board concluded that the respondent did not show an exceptional situation warranting sua sponte reopening. Relying on Matter of Yadav and related precedent, the Board emphasized that equities acquired years after a final order of removal generally do not justify reopening, especially where the visa petition remains pending rather than approved. The motion to reopen was denied, and the stay request was denied as moot.

The full text of Matter of Herrera-Nunez can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1445651/dl?inline

BIA Announces Prospective DHS-First Stay Request Rule

The Board of Immigration Appeals has announced a new prospective procedural rule for stay requests filed with motions to reopen or reconsider. The Board held that a respondent with a final order of removal should first request a stay from DHS before asking the Board or an Immigration Judge (IJ) to grant a stay in connection with a motion to reopen or reconsider.

The Board explained that DHS has statutory authority to execute removal orders and is generally best positioned to consider stay requests first. The new rule applies only to stay requests filed after June 12, 2026, and does not bar the Board or IJ from granting a stay after DHS denies one. Emergency situations, including imminent removal of a detained respondent, may remain excepted.

The full text of Matter of Herrera-Nunez can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1445646/dl?inline

BIA Holds Social Distinction Generally Must Be Measured Countrywide

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the social distinction element of a particular social group generally must be measured on a countrywide basis, rather than from the perspective of a neighborhood or other limited geographic area. The case involved a Honduran applicant in withholding-only proceedings who had opposed MS-13’s attempt to recruit her daughter.

The Board vacated the grant of withholding of removal. It concluded that the Immigration Judge erred by relying on neighborhood-level recognition to find social distinction and also erred in the nexus analysis. The Board found that MS-13’s central motive was recruitment, compliance, and control, not the applicant’s family membership. The case was remanded for CAT proceedings only.

The full text of Matter of S-E-M-Z- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1444566/dl?inline

BIA Finds Health Care Fraud Conviction Is a Particularly Serious Crime

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a federal health care fraud conviction under 18 USC 1347 is a particularly serious crime. The respondent, a lawful permanent resident from Nigeria, had been convicted of health care fraud involving millions of dollars in loss and sought asylum, withholding, and CAT protection.

The Board concluded that health care fraud inherently involves deceitful conduct and can qualify as a particularly serious crime, even though it is a property offense. The Board noted that aggravated felonies are a category of crimes that are more likely to fall within the ambit of a particularly serious crime. The amount of loss, restitution, and the respondent’s role in the offense supported the particularly serious crime finding. The Board also upheld the denial of CAT protection, finding that the respondent had not shown that kidnapping or torture in Nigeria was more likely than not.

The full text of Matter of J-O-A- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1444231/dl?inline

BIA Reverses LPR Cancellation Grant Based on Criminal History

The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed a grant of cancellation of removal to a Canadian lawful permanent resident. The respondent had lived in the United States for decades and had significant family, employment, tax, and health-related equities, but also had multiple criminal convictions and recent conduct showing continued recidivism.

The Board found that the Immigration Judge gave insufficient weight to the respondent’s criminal history, including convictions for stolen property, burglary, endangering the welfare of a child, driving while ability impaired, and harassment. The Board concluded that the adverse factors outweighed the respondent’s equities, sustained DHS’s appeal, and ordered him removed to Canada.

The full text of Matter of Mills can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1443916/dl?inline