BIA Requires Content of Bar Complaint, Not Just Proof of Filing, for Ineffective Assistance Claims

On remand from the Tenth Circuit, the Board of Immigration Appeals has clarified what a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel must include to satisfy Matter of Lozada's requirement that the motion reflect whether a bar complaint has been filed. The respondents, a Honduran mother and daughter, had submitted proof that a complaint was mailed to disciplinary authorities but not the contents of the complaint itself.

The Board held that both the substance of the bar complaint and proof of its filing are required, agreeing with the Eighth Circuit's reasoning in Irias v. Bondi that merely describing the complaint's content in the motion, or proving only that something was mailed, is insufficient, particularly where new counsel works at the same firm as the attorney accused of ineffectiveness. The Board gave the respondents thirty days to submit the actual bar complaint or have their motion automatically denied.

The full text of Matter of L-R-M-C- & V-A-M-M- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1452566/dl?inline

BIA Clarifies That a Parent's Choice to Leave a Child in the U.S. Does Not Alone Create Hardship

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of cancellation of removal to a Guatemalan father whose six-year-old U.S. citizen daughter would likely enter foster care if he were removed, since the child's mother is incapacitated and her adult half-sister cannot serve as a long-term caregiver.

The Board held that the immigration judge legally erred by finding hardship based on the respondent's choice to leave his daughter in the United States without parental care, reaffirming Matter of Ige and extending its reasoning to cancellation of removal: absent a showing that the child would suffer extreme hardship accompanying the parent abroad, the hardship of remaining behind is generally attributable to parental choice rather than removal. The Board also clarified that care by a responsible non-parent can be sufficient for a qualifying relative child, and remanded for further fact-finding on hardship, including the respondent's failure to submit an affidavit or documentation of care arrangements as required.

The full text of Matter of Lopez-Davila can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1452826/dl?inline

BIA Reverses CAT Deferral Grant to Gang Informant, Finding Reliance on Generalized Country Conditions

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture to a Guatemalan man who feared retaliation from the Latin Kings and MS-13 after cooperating with federal law enforcement and testifying against gang members while incarcerated.

The Board held that the immigration judge clearly erred by relying almost entirely on generalized country-conditions evidence and expert testimony about corruption while overlooking the applicant's individualized circumstances, including that he had never been tortured, that the gangs' threats since his release had been vague and indirect, and that years had passed without any physical approach from gang members. The Board also found that the expert's acknowledgment that both the Guatemalan and Mexican governments have taken some action against organized crime undercut a finding of official acquiescence, and vacated the grant of CAT relief to both countries.

The full text of Matter of H-L-S-M- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1453181/dl?inline

BIA Holds "Brazilian Children" and "Abandoned Brazilian Children" Are Not Particular Social Groups

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of humanitarian asylum to a Brazilian man who was physically abused as a child and drugged and raped by two men, vacating the grant and remanding for consideration of his separate CAT claim.

The Board held that "Brazilian children" and "abandoned Brazilian children" are not cognizable particular social groups because they lack the required particularity, encompassing an enormous and diffuse swath of society with no defined boundaries around the term "abandoned." The Board also found clear error in the immigration judge's conclusion that the Brazilian government was unable or unwilling to control the respondent's abusers, noting that one perpetrator had been arrested in connection with other crimes and that Brazil provides services and a hotline to protect abused children, and held that without a showing of past persecution the respondent could not qualify for humanitarian asylum.

The full text of Matter of A-G-O-F- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1453426/dl?inline

BIA Denies Reopening Where Respondent Convicted of Sexual Offenses Failed to Show Requisite Hardship

The Board of Immigration Appeals has denied a motion to reopen filed by a Jamaican respondent seeking to pursue adjustment of status based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen, following approval of a family visa petition after his removal order became final.

The Board held that the respondent's convictions for sexual abuse and forcible touching might require him to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, rather than the ordinary extreme hardship standard, to obtain a waiver of inadmissibility, and that he failed to meet even the lower standard given that he was already detained before the marriage and identified no specific increase in hardship his wife would face from his removal. The Board also held that his substantial family equities were outweighed by the seriousness of his sexual offense convictions in the discretionary analysis, and denied reopening for lack of a realistic chance of success on the merits.

The full text of Matter of Y-S-P-T- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1453536/dl?inline

BIA Holds Immigration Judges May Draw Adverse Inferences From Invocation of the Fifth Amendment

The Board of Immigration Appeals has dismissed the appeal of a Mexican lawful permanent resident found removable for unlawfully voting in a 2012 federal election, who was also denied cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion after he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege rather than answer questions about a prior DUI conviction and a pending DUI arrest.

The Board held that removability for unlawful voting under 18 U.S.C. § 611(a) does not require proof the respondent knew voting was unlawful, since the statute is a general intent crime, and upheld the removability finding based on the respondent's own sworn admissions. On discretion, the Board held that while a respondent has every right to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, an immigration judge may draw reasonable adverse inferences from a refusal to provide testimony material to discretionary relief, and held that unlawful voting is a significant adverse discretionary factor given Congress's evident concern for the integrity of the electoral process.

The full text of Matter of Lopez Rico can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1453751/dl?inline

BIA Holds Failure to Pay Annual Asylum Fee Dooms Asylum Claim but Not Withholding or CAT Protection

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained an appeal filed by a Cuban respondent whose entire application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection was deemed abandoned after she failed to pay the new annual asylum fee created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act by the immigration judge's deadline.

The Board held that the annual asylum fee is a mandatory, non-waivable eligibility requirement, and that an immigration judge may properly pretermit or deem abandoned an asylum application for nonpayment. But the Board held that the statute's plain language, referring only to "an application for asylum," does not extend the fee requirement or its consequences to applications for statutory withholding of removal or CAT protection, notwithstanding DHS's argument that the regulatory definition of "asylum application" already encompasses those forms of relief. The Board remanded for the immigration judge to consider the respondent's withholding and CAT claims on the merits.

The full text of Matter of L-F-R- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1454066/dl?inline

Tenth Circuit Vacates Judgment and Orders Supplemental Briefing on Reviewability of Refugee Termination

The Tenth Circuit has granted the government's request for panel rehearing and vacated its own January 2026 judgment in a case challenging USCIS's determination that two Rwandan refugees were not actually refugees at the time of their admission, in light of the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Mullin v. Doe.

The Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing whether Mullin v. Doe's statement that unreviewable final agency action renders subsidiary determinations unreviewable calls into question the panel's prior holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) permits judicial review of USCIS's underlying refugee-status determination, and whether any avenue for review of that determination remains available. The court also asked the government to clarify an apparent inconsistency in its litigation positions on whether the termination decision can be considered as part of a petition for review.

The full text of Mukantagara v. Mullin can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111468891.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Oregon Assault Committed in a Child's Presence Is a Crime of Child Abuse

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a lawful permanent resident found removable for a felony assault conviction based on battering his wife in front of their minor children, holding that Oregon's enhanced fourth-degree assault statute is divisible and that his particular conviction matches the federal removability ground for a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.

Applying the modified categorical approach, the Court held that Oregon law requires the jury to unanimously find, as a distinct element, that the assault was committed in the immediate presence of or witnessed by a minor child, and that the petitioner's indictment and plea agreement confirmed he was convicted under that provision. The Court held that assaulting someone in a child's immediate presence places the child in real danger of bodily or mental harm and that Oregon's default criminal-negligence standard satisfies the minimum mens rea required, making the conviction a categorical match.

The full text of Diaz-Boyzo v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/23/17-72894.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Child Who Turns 21 During BIA Appeal Is No Longer a Qualifying Relative

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican father seeking cancellation of removal, holding that his son, who was 20 years old when the immigration judge denied relief but turned 21 while the case was on appeal to the BIA, could no longer be considered a qualifying relative for purposes of the hardship analysis.

The Court held that the cancellation of removal statute requires the agency to assess qualifying relatives on a continuing basis up through whichever body issues the final decision, since the statute asks whether removal "would result" in hardship and thus calls for a prediction based on the most current information available. Because the statute contains no aging-out protection comparable to the one Congress created elsewhere in the INA, the Court held the BIA correctly declined to consider hardship to the petitioner's son and, applying substantial evidence review, upheld the agency's finding that hardship to the petitioner's remaining qualifying relatives did not rise to the exceptional and extremely unusual level required.

The full text of Torres-Casas v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/22/25-172.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Age-Based Social Groups Are Immutable as a Matter of Law

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Mexican mother and her three children who fled after armed men threatened to force the children into drug trafficking and sex trafficking, holding that the BIA erred in finding her proposed social group of "mothers of adolescent children living in Mexico" non-cognizable purely because age changes over time.

The Court held that age-based social groups are immutable as a matter of law, since an applicant cannot alter her age, or a child's age, to escape persecution, and that the relevant age is the applicant's age at the time persecution occurred or is feared. The Court clarified that age-based groups may still fail for lack of particularity or social distinction, but reversed the BIA's categorical rule to the contrary. The Court also held that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review, clear error instead of de novo, to the nexus determination for the petitioner's separate social group of single women targeted by criminal groups, and remanded for the agency to reconsider both issues under the correct standards.

The full text of Garcia Demetrio v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/20/25-991.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Murder-for-Hire Resulting in Death Is Not Categorically a Crime of Violence

The Ninth Circuit has partly granted a habeas petition filed by a man convicted of hiring a hit man to murder two business associates, holding that his solicitation convictions tied to those killings cannot stand because murder-for-hire resulting in death is not categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 373(a).

The Court held that while the death-results element of the murder-for-hire statute likely satisfies the physical force requirement, it lacks any mens rea requirement and can be satisfied by an accidental killing, meaning it does not categorically require the intentional use of force needed to qualify as a crime of violence.

The full text of United States v. Henrikson can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/15/23-2132.pdf

Fourth Circuit Upholds Bar on Parents of Special Immigrant Juveniles Receiving Immigration Benefits

The Fourth Circuit has affirmed summary judgment for USCIS against two naturalized citizens who obtained status through the Special Immigrant Juvenile program as children and later tried to petition for immigration benefits on behalf of their mothers, one through military parole-in-place and one through a family-based petition.

The Court held that the SIJ statute's exclusion clause permanently bars any natural or prior adoptive parent of an SIJ recipient from ever obtaining immigration benefits by virtue of that parentage, regardless of which parent was found to have abused, neglected, or abandoned the child, and that USCIS's implementing regulation faithfully tracks that bar. The Court also rejected the petitioners' equal protection challenge, holding that although SIJ recipients are treated differently from other citizens seeking to sponsor a parent, the exclusion clause survives rational basis review because it reasonably protects children from parents who may have caused them harm.

The full text of Fuentes v. USCIS can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251005.P.pdf

An amended opinion can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251005.p.pdf

Fourth Circuit Affirms Habeas Jurisdiction Over Georgetown Scholar's Detention Challenge

The Fourth Circuit has affirmed a district court's exercise of habeas jurisdiction over the detention challenge brought by Dr. Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown postdoctoral scholar detained by ICE and rapidly transferred across four detention facilities in multiple states after the Secretary of State determined that his social media activity concerning Gaza posed foreign policy consequences.

The Court held that the unknown-custodian exception and the exception drawn from Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Rumsfeld v. Padilla both independently supported jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Virginia, given the government's rapid and largely undisclosed movement of Suri and the district court's unchallenged findings of forum manipulation. The Court further held that none of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), 1252(b)(9), or 1252(a)(5) stripped the district court of jurisdiction, reasoning that Suri's detention and due process claims were legally distinct from, and did not arise from, the government's decision to commence removal proceedings, and expressly declining to follow the Third Circuit's contrary approach in Khalil v. President, United States.

The full text of Suri v. Trump can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251560.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Holds Deferred Enforced Departure Is Not an Admission "In Any Status"

The Fourth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran woman seeking cancellation of removal, holding that her 1994 reentry as a beneficiary of Deferred Enforced Departure did not count as an admission "in any status" for purposes of the seven-year continuous residence requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2), even though the immigration officer stamped her passport "Admitted."

The Court held that "status" in the INA is a term of art denoting membership in a congressionally defined immigration classification, and that DED, a purely discretionary act of executive forbearance, creates no such classification. Splitting from the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, the majority reasoned that "any status" broadens the range of qualifying statuses but does not dispense with the requirement that some status exist at all, and that her earlier Temporary Protected Status had already expired by the time of her 1994 reentry.

The full text of Montesinos Cisneros v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/231090.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Denies Asylum Where Gang Extorted Petitioner as Part of Generalized Recruitment

The Fourth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan man who fled after MS-13 members assaulted him and demanded extortion payments, threatening to recruit him because he could not pay. He sought asylum based on membership in social groups of Guatemalan youths and youths who resist gang recruitment.

The Court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that the gang targeted the petitioner for money and to grow its ranks generally, not because of his age or his resistance to recruitment specifically, since his own testimony described an indiscriminate extortion scheme applied to everyone in the gang's territory. The Court explained that a general country-conditions report on gang recruitment of youth could not compel a contrary, petitioner-specific finding of nexus, and separately upheld the denial of CAT protection based on evidence that Guatemalan police make genuine efforts to combat gang violence.

The full text of Flores-Turcios v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241338.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Finds Due Process Violation Where Immigration Court Refused Timely VAWA Filing

The Fourth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Jamaican domestic violence survivor whose motion to reopen removal proceedings under VAWA was denied as untimely, even though his attorney had tried to file it on the deadline both electronically and in person, only to be turned away each time by the immigration court itself.

The Court held that the INA's grant of a statutory right to file a motion to reopen creates a protected liberty interest, and that the record compelled the conclusion that the immigration court's own refusal to accept a timely filing rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair and prejudiced the outcome. The Court rejected the BIA's reasoning that the petitioner's failure to return to the courthouse the next day, or to have already filed his VAWA self-petition with USCIS, undermined his claim, since neither was required to establish timeliness or prejudice. The Court reversed and remanded, noting that filing a motion "should not be a game of gotcha."

The full text of Burey v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251869.P.pdf

Second Circuit Grants Bail Pending Appeal to Detainee with End-Stage Renal Disease

The Second Circuit has granted bail pending appeal to Raheem Fulton, a Jamaican national subject to a final removal order who has End Stage Renal Disease and has been detained by ICE for over two years while litigating what medical arrangements the government must make before removing him to Jamaica for dialysis treatment.

Applying the standard from Mapp v. Reno, the Court held that Fulton raised a substantial claim regarding medical-discharge planning and that extraordinary circumstances, including a prior near-fatal missed dialysis appointment in custody and the risks of prolonged detention, made bail necessary to make habeas relief effective. A dissenting judge argued that Fulton himself was responsible for the length of his detention by litigating the manner of his removal rather than accepting it, that he receives adequate dialysis in custody, and that his petition sought relief resembling an injunction rather than the release habeas is meant to secure.

The full text of Fulton v. Mullin can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-194_complete_opn.pdf

Second Circuit Holds Zipper Clause Strips Jurisdiction Over Detained Columbia Activist's Habeas Petition

The Second Circuit has vacated a district court order releasing Mohsen Mahdawi, a lawful permanent resident and Columbia University student detained after the Secretary of State determined that his pro-Palestinian activism posed foreign policy consequences warranting removal. Mahdawi's habeas petition alleged that his detention and targeting for removal violated the First Amendment and due process.

The Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9), the INA's "zipper clause," channels Mahdawi's claims into the petition-for-review process because his challenge to detention was, in substance, a challenge to the government's basis for removing him. Following the Third Circuit's reasoning in Khalil v. President, United States, the Court concluded that Mahdawi's detention and removal arguments were identical, that he could have sought release through an administrative Joseph hearing, and that channeling his claims did not foreclose meaningful review since he could raise them in his now-pending petition for review. The Court remanded with instructions to dismiss the habeas petition.

The full text of Mahdawi v. Trump can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-1113_complete_opn.pdf

First Circuit Denies Stay of Order Vacating $100,000 H-1B Payment Requirement

The First Circuit has denied the government's motion to stay a district court order vacating DHS and State Department actions implementing a presidential proclamation that required a $100,000 payment to accompany H-1B visa petitions. A coalition of twenty states had challenged the payment requirement as exceeding the executive's statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Court held that the government failed to make the strong showing of likely success on the merits needed for a stay, agreeing with the states that the $100,000 payment functions like a fee or tax requiring a clear congressional delegation under Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co., and that neither the statutory provisions invoked by the President nor Congress's pattern of explicitly authorizing fees elsewhere in the immigration code supplied that clear statement. The Court also rejected the government's argument that the implementing actions were not final agency action subject to review, and found the remaining stay factors did not favor the government either.

The full text of California v. Mullin can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/26-1699O-01A.pdf