Seventh Circuit Denies Asylum to Serbian Soccer Player Targeted by Hooligans

The Seventh Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Serbian professional soccer player who sought asylum after being beaten by a violent fan group dissatisfied with his on-field performance. The immigration judge found the petitioner's account of the attack and subsequent threats credible but concluded he had not established persecution on account of a protected ground.

The Court agreed that neither "soccer players" nor "former soccer players" constitutes a cognizable particular social group, since the harm the petitioner feared stemmed from personal, performance-related grievances rather than an immutable characteristic. The Court also found the petitioner's imputed political opinion argument undeveloped and waived. Separately, the Court expressed concern about immigration judges' growing practice of appending boilerplate legal citations in a separate document from their factual findings, though it declined to disturb the outcome here since the result would not have changed.

The full text of Andric v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D07-01/C:25-1448:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:3567073:S:0

Seventh Circuit Denies Government's Bid to Dismiss Post-Riley Petitions as Untimely

The Seventh Circuit has denied the government's motions to dismiss petitions for review filed by two noncitizens whose withholding-only proceedings remain pending, rejecting new jurisdictional arguments raised in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. Bondi. One petitioner is a Salvadoran woman whose reinstated removal order has been pending review for nearly a decade; the other is a Mexican woman convicted of theft who is contesting a final administrative removal order.

The Court held that a reinstatement order remains a final order of removal subject to judicial review, reaffirming decades of circuit precedent and rejecting the government's argument that reinstatement orders are unreviewable altogether. The Court also held that the petitions were not filed too early, since Riley itself endorsed the practice of filing placeholder petitions while withholding-only proceedings remain pending. Finally, the Court concluded that the thirty-day filing deadline is subject to equitable tolling and that both petitioners reasonably relied on then-binding circuit precedent in timing their filings, making tolling appropriate here.

The full text of E.E.V. v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D07-06/C:25-2268:J:Hamilton:aut:T:op:N:3568944:S:0

Fifth Circuit Affirms Habeas Relief for Long-Term Residents Held Without Bond Under Section 1225

The Fifth Circuit has affirmed habeas relief for three long-term undocumented residents of Texas, each detained without a bond hearing after the government reinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to mandate detention for unadmitted noncitizens found anywhere in the country's interior, not just at the border. None of the three men had a criminal history or removal order, and each has U.S. citizen children.

The Court held that even under this new statutory interpretation, the Due Process Clause requires the government to provide a bond hearing within ninety days of detention, since Congress made no individualized or categorical findings that noncitizens like the petitioners pose a danger or flight risk sufficient to justify mandatory, bondless detention.

The full text of Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/26/26-50219-CV0.pdf

Eight days later, the Fifth Circuit granted en banc rehearing in the matter, vacating the three-judge panel’s decision: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/26/26-50219-CV1.pdf

Fourth Circuit Vacates BIA's Reversal of CAT Relief for Improper De Novo Review

The Fourth Circuit, on remand from the Supreme Court, has granted a Jamaican petitioner's amended petition for review challenging the BIA's reversal of an immigration judge's grant of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The petitioner feared torture at the hands of a Jamaican drug lord who had allegedly ordered the killing of two of his cousins, with the acquiescence of local police.

Addressing threshold issues left open by the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. Bondi, the Court permitted the petitioner to amend his petition to include his original removal order, curing any jurisdictional defect. On the merits, the Court held that the BIA had improperly reweighed the evidence and substituted its own factual findings for the immigration judge's, rather than applying the deferential clear-error standard required for review of CAT determinations. The Court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded for the agency to reconsider under the correct standard.

The full text of Riley v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221609.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Remands for Proper Application of Particularly Serious Crime Test Despite Incredible Testimony

The Fourth Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran asylum applicant whose claims of persecution by a transnational cartel were found not credible by the immigration judge. The applicant was also found statutorily barred from asylum and withholding of removal based on a Virginia conviction for assault and battery against a family member, which the judge deemed a particularly serious crime.

The Court upheld the adverse credibility determination and the denial of CAT relief, agreeing that the applicant's account of his encounters with the cartel was properly found implausible and uncorroborated. However, the Court held that the immigration judge failed to apply the required two-step test for the particularly serious crime bar, evaluating the elements of the offense only after describing its underlying facts rather than before. The Court remanded for the agency to properly apply its own precedent.

The full text of Guevara Martinez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251429.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Holds Virginia Embezzlement Is Not Categorically a Crime of Fraud or Deceit

The Fourth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Honduran lawful permanent resident found removable based on a Virginia embezzlement conviction that the agency classified as an aggravated felony involving fraud or deceit.

Applying the categorical approach, the Court held that Virginia's embezzlement statute does not require any fraudulent or deceitful conduct by its elements, since a person can embezzle openly, without concealment or misrepresentation. The Court rejected the government's reliance on prior dicta suggesting embezzlement generally involves dishonesty, explaining that Virginia's statute criminalizes only the wrongful taking of property already in the defendant's possession. The Court vacated the removal order and remanded to the agency.

The full text of Ramos v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/252037.P.pdf

Second Circuit Vacates CAT Denial for Failure to Assess Torture Conditions in Salvadoran Prisons

The Second Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran former gang member found removable after a firearms conviction. The agency had denied asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, finding the petitioner not credible and unlikely to be tortured if detained upon return to El Salvador.

The Court upheld the adverse credibility finding, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence given inconsistencies in the petitioner's account of his gang involvement. However, the Court found that the agency failed to properly evaluate whether the harsh conditions in Salvadoran prisons, imposed under the government's "state of exception," amount to torture, and did not consider evidence that those conditions are intentionally maintained rather than merely the product of neglect or lack of resources. The case was remanded for further consideration of the CAT claim.

The full text of Aguilar-Villalobos v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-6899_opn.pdf

Supreme Court Upholds Metering at the Border

The Supreme Court has held that a noncitizen standing in Mexico who is prevented from crossing the border has not “arrived in the United States” for purposes of the INA’s inspection and asylum provisions. The case challenged the government’s metering policy, under which CBP limited the number of asylum seekers processed each day at U.S.-Mexico land ports of entry.

The Court concluded that “arrives in the United States” requires physical entry into the country. Because the plaintiffs had not crossed into the United States, the INA did not require inspection or allow them to apply for asylum based solely on their presence at the border in Mexico. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.

The full text of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-5_86qd.pdf

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