Sixth Circuit Holds Tennessee Cocaine Convictions Are Serious Drug Offenses Under ACCA

The Sixth Circuit has affirmed an Armed Career Criminal Act sentence, rejecting the defendant's argument that his prior Tennessee cocaine convictions were categorically overbroad because the state drug schedule also lists cocaine's isomers.

The Court held that Tennessee's penalty statute, unlike the Missouri statute at issue in a case the defendant relied on, punishes cocaine specifically rather than incorporating the entire drug schedule by reference, so the conviction is not overbroad.

The full text of United States v. Starling can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0212p-06.pdf

Sixth Circuit Denies Petition Raising Fourth Amendment, Notice-to-Appear, and Nexus Challenges

The Sixth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan Maya Quiché man who sought suppression of identity evidence obtained during a police stop and withholding of removal and CAT protection based on an intrafamilial land dispute with political undertones.

The Court held that the officer's stop was supported by reasonable suspicion after he personally witnessed a littering violation, defeating any Fourth Amendment suppression claim, and that the absence of Miranda warnings does not render statements inadmissible in civil removal proceedings. The Court also held that the petitioner forfeited his challenge to a noncompliant notice to appear by raising it more than a year after Niz-Chavez was decided and long after the close of proceedings, and that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that his great uncle's threats were motivated by a personal land dispute rather than any protected ground.

The full text of Perez-Hernandez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0208p-06.pdf

Fifth Circuit Vacates Adverse Credibility Finding Based on Mistranslated Afghan Calendar Dates

The Fifth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a former Afghan government security officer who fled after the Taliban issued arrest warrants citing his work for two assassinated vice presidents, holding that the agency's adverse credibility finding rested on inconsistencies that were not actually inconsistencies at all.

The Court held that apparent discrepancies in the petitioner's employment dates were the product of an interpreter's failure to convert dates from the Afghan calendar and a mistaken premise about what he told officials during his credible fear interview, findings no reasonable factfinder could have rejected. The Court also held the agency failed to meaningfully consider photographic and documentary evidence corroborating his government service and remanded for the agency to reassess credibility without relying on the discredited inconsistencies.

The full text of Eqbal v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60504-CV0.pdf

Fourth Circuit Vacates Cancellation Denial Where Petitioner Was Never Heard on Third-Country Hardship

The Fourth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Guinean mother who was denied cancellation of removal after being granted withholding of removal to Guinea based on her fear that her daughters would face female genital mutilation there, holding that she was never given a fair opportunity to present evidence that removal to a third country would cause her daughters exceptional hardship.

The Court held that the immigration judge's order limiting briefing to the narrow legal question of whether withholding relief categorically barred cancellation left the petitioner no opportunity to develop the separate factual question of third-country hardship, and that the promised evidentiary hearing on that question never occurred. The Court vacated the BIA's order and remanded, over a dissent that would have found the procedural argument forfeited and any error harmless.

The full text of Keita v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241226.P.pdf

Second Circuit Holds Immigration Judges May Require Corroboration Without an Adverse Credibility Finding

The Second Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Yemeni man seeking deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture after his conviction for stabbing two members of a rival family, holding that the BIA properly found his challenge to the corroboration requirement forfeited and that the agency's denial of relief was supported by substantial evidence.

The Court held that an immigration judge need not make an adverse credibility finding before requiring corroboration of otherwise credible testimony, since credibility and corroboration are distinct statutory inquiries, and clarified that this same rule applies to CAT claims even though the CAT regulations do not contain the same explicit corroboration language found in the asylum and withholding statutes. The Court also held that the agency reasonably found the petitioner failed to show a likelihood of torture given the multiple speculative links in his theorized chain of harm and his ability to relocate within Yemen.

The full text of Al Saidi v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/21-6589_opn.pdf

First Circuit Grants Reopening Where BIA Misconstrued Sua Sponte Motion as Statutory

The First Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Cambodian former lawful permanent resident whose second motion to reopen was denied after a Rhode Island court vacated his 1996 drug conviction for a Rule 11 plea-colloquy defect, holding that the BIA mistakenly analyzed the motion under the statutory time-and-number bar rather than its own sua sponte reopening authority.

The Court held that the BIA's invocation of equitable tolling and the ninety-day statutory deadline revealed that it had misunderstood the petitioner's request, since sua sponte motions are not subject to any time bar and may be granted "at any time." The Court also held that the BIA erred on the merits by concluding the vacatur was not based on a procedural defect, since the state court's order expressly cited a Rule 11 violation implicating due process. The Court remanded for the BIA to exercise its sua sponte discretion under the correct legal framework.

The full text of Kim v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-2042P-01A.pdf

First Circuit Denies Asylum Where Robberies and Family Threats Lacked Nexus to a Protected Ground

The First Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran woman who was robbed by gang members on three occasions and later threatened by an MS-13-affiliated relative after she urged her sister to report him to police for sexually assaulting her niece.

The Court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that the robberies were motivated by ordinary financial gain rather than any protected characteristic, and that the relative's threats stemmed from personal revenge for the police report rather than the petitioner's family membership itself, particularly since other family members in El Salvador were left unharmed. Because the petitioner could not establish the required nexus for either asylum or withholding of removal, the Court did not need to reach her timeliness argument or her claim for humanitarian asylum.

The full text of Monzon Guzman v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1351P-01A.pdf

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