Fifth Circuit Denies CAT Relief and Clarifies Jurisdiction to Review Continuance Denials

The Fifth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran man whose CAT claim was rejected after three rounds of agency proceedings due to persistent credibility problems, while separately clarifying the circuit's jurisdiction to review an immigration judge's denial of a continuance to submit late evidence.

The Court held that none of the INA's jurisdiction-stripping provisions bar review of continuance denials in CAT cases, and that the agency did not abuse its discretion here given the petitioner's ample earlier opportunities to submit evidence. On the merits, the Court held substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility finding given significant inconsistencies about the core events underlying his torture claim, and that generalized country-conditions evidence about gang violence in El Salvador could not compel a contrary finding of likely torture.

The full text of Lopez-Barrera v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60302-CV0.pdf

Fifth Circuit Holds Knowing Use of a Passport Invalidated by Changed Circumstances Is a CIMT

The Fifth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Nigerian lawful permanent resident found inadmissible for a prior conviction for using a forged passport, holding that knowing use of a false or invalidated passport is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.

No longer deferring to the BIA under Loper Bright, the Court independently held that using a document known to be false, or a once-valid passport known to have become void, involves the kind of fraud or deceit against the issuing government that has long defined moral turpitude, regardless of whether the specific conduct involved forgery or merely continued use of an invalidated document.

The full text of Ademola v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60475-CV0.pdf

Fifth Circuit Holds Illegal Firearms Export Conviction Falls Under Security-Related Removability Ground

The Fifth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Haitian lawful permanent resident convicted of smuggling fifty firearms to Haiti concealed in vehicles, rejecting his argument that the security-related removability ground for violating export laws should be read narrowly to require an actual national security or public safety threat.

The Court held that the plain text of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(A)(i), covering any activity violating a law prohibiting the export of goods, is satisfied by the petitioner's federal conviction for unlicensed firearms exportation regardless of whether the specific shipment endangered national security, rejecting his noscitur a sociis argument as subordinate to the statute's plain text. A dissenting judge argued the majority's reading would extend to trivial regulatory violations like exporting a bag of chips and urged that the provision be read, in context, to require an actual public-safety or national-security nexus.

The full text of Olibris v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60322-CV0.pdf

Fifth Circuit En Banc Dismisses Alien Enemies Act Challenge as Moot After Named Petitioners Removed

Sitting en banc on remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit has dismissed as moot the appeal of three Venezuelan nationals challenging their potential removal under the President's Alien Enemies Act proclamation targeting Tren de Aragua, after learning at oral argument that the government had already removed all three petitioners under ordinary immigration law rather than the Act.

The Court held that because no class was ever certified and no named petitioner remains in the country, there is no one to whom the court could grant effective relief, and it declined to add new class representatives on appeal. Concurring opinions would have gone further and ruled for the government on the merits, reasoning that courts must defer to the President's determination that an invasion is underway and that the notice provided to detainees satisfies due process.

The full text of W.M.M. v. Trump can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10534-CV4.pdf

Fourth Circuit Affirms Injunction Requiring DHS to Restore Houses-of-Worship Enforcement Policy

The Fourth Circuit has affirmed a preliminary injunction obtained by Quaker, Sikh, and Baptist congregations requiring DHS to abide by its 2021 policy limiting immigration enforcement at houses of worship, after the agency rescinded that policy in January 2025 in favor of officer "discretion" and "common sense."

The Court held the plaintiffs had standing based on documented declines in worship attendance traceable to the new policy, and were likely to succeed on their claim that the policy substantially burdens their religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by increasing the threat of enforcement actions at their services and pressuring congregations to compromise beliefs of welcoming all worshippers and pacifism. Because the government failed to argue or present evidence in the district court that the new policy was the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest, the Court held it had waived that defense.

The full text of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. DHS can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251512.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Holds Provisional Waiver Regulations Do Not Shield Applicants from Removal

The Fourth Circuit has vacated summary judgment for a certified class of noncitizens married to U.S. citizens who were arrested at USCIS offices while pursuing provisional unlawful-presence waivers, holding that the waiver regulations do not bar the government from detaining or removing applicants while their waiver applications remain pending.

The Court held the regulations expressly warn that a pending provisional waiver application does not stay removal, and that intervening circuit precedent forecloses any due process right to access the waiver process without interference. The Court also held the sparse, discovery-free record could not support the class's alternative theory that the government used the waiver program as "bait" to lure and target applicants for arrest, and remanded for further proceedings on that narrower theory.

The full text of Sanchez v. Mullin can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241487.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Holds Section 1252(b)(1)'s Deadline Is Subject to Equitable Tolling

The Fourth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran man who fled MS-13 retaliation after founding an anti-gang youth committee, holding both that his otherwise-late petition should be equitably tolled given the confusion created by the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Riley v. Bondi and that the agency committed multiple errors on the merits of his withholding and CAT claims.

Joining the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, the Court held that nothing in the text, structure, or history of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) rebuts the ordinary presumption favoring equitable tolling of filing deadlines. On the merits, the Court held the agency ignored substantial record evidence that the gang imputed an anti-gang political opinion to the petitioner, erred in its particular social group analysis by requiring "public" visibility and analyzing terms like "witness" and "report" in isolation rather than together, and failed to meaningfully engage with corroborating evidence supporting his CAT claim.

The full text of Navarro Cerritos v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/231897.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Holds Agency Erred by Focusing on Why the Persecutor Targeted the Petitioner's Partner

The Fourth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran mother and her children denied asylum after a man threatened them in retaliation for her former partner's affair with the man's wife, holding that the agency legally erred by analyzing why the persecutor targeted the former partner rather than why he threatened the family.

The Court held that the nexus inquiry must focus on the persecutor's reasons for targeting the petitioner herself, and that the record compelled a finding that the petitioner was threatened solely because of her family relationship to her former partner, satisfying the "at least one central reason" standard even though the underlying dispute stemmed from personal matters between the men. A concurring judge wrote separately to flag, for future cases, that the government may be able to defend an agency ruling on grounds the agency did not itself invoke following the Supreme Court's decision in FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments.

The full text of Orellana-Ramos v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/252320.P.pdf

Third Circuit Vacates Stay of Removal in Long-Running Challenge to 2011 Removal Order

The Third Circuit has vacated a longstanding stay of removal for a Dominican petitioner making his fourth attempt to reopen a removal order that became final in 2011, holding that after supplemental briefing and oral argument he could no longer meet his burden on any of the four factors governing a stay pending appeal.

The Court held the petitioner failed to show a likelihood of success given multiple unaddressed obstacles to his statutory and sua sponte reopening theories, failed to show irreparable harm based only on speculative fear of a routine ICE check-in, and could not overcome the strong public interest in finality given his decade-plus history of unsuccessful challenges. The Court separately explained its denial of a late request to hold the case in abeyance for a state-court collateral attack on the underlying conviction, noting the timing suggested an effort to manufacture further delay.

The full text of Aristy-Rosa v. Attorney General can be found here: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/251490p.pdf

Second Circuit Holds New Jersey Disorderly Persons Offense Was a "Conviction" Under the INA

On remand from the Supreme Court in light of Loper Bright, the Second Circuit has again denied a petition for review filed by a Hong Kong-born lawful permanent resident found removable for two crimes involving moral turpitude, one of which was a New Jersey disorderly persons offense for theft by deception.

Applying independent judgment rather than deferring to the BIA's interpretation, the Court held that a "conviction" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) means a formal judgment of guilt reached through a proceeding affording the accused core criminal-procedural protections and resulting in a criminal sentence, regardless of how a state labels the offense or what collateral consequences it carries. Because the petitioner's disorderly persons proceeding provided those protections and exposed him to potential incarceration, the Court held it was a conviction under the INA and again denied his petition.

The full text of Wong v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/22-6185_2_opn.pdf

First Circuit Holds Witness-Tampering Conviction Is Not an Aggravated Felony Obstruction Offense

The First Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Liberian citizen and former Sierra Leonean child soldier found removable for a New Hampshire witness-retaliation conviction, holding that the offense does not qualify as an aggravated felony "relating to obstruction of justice" because it can be committed through pure revenge without any intent to interfere with a legal proceeding.

The Court held that the generic federal offense requires a specific intent to interfere with the legal process, consistent with the Supreme Court's reasoning in Pugin v. Garland, and that New Hampshire's highest court has upheld convictions under the statute based solely on a desire for personal payback. Because the least culpable conduct covered by the New Hampshire statute sweeps more broadly than the generic offense, the Court vacated the BIA's removability finding and did not reach the petitioner's separate challenge to the agency's reversal of his grant of CAT deferral.

The full text of Bangs v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1820P-01A.pdf

First Circuit Holds Unadmitted Noncitizens Present in the Interior Are Not "Seeking Admission"

The First Circuit has affirmed a district court order requiring bond hearings for a certified class of noncitizens detained in Massachusetts after entering the United States without inspection, holding that such individuals are governed by the discretionary detention authority in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than the mandatory, bondless detention provision in § 1225(b)(2)(A).

The Court held that "seeking admission" in § 1225(b)(2)(A) means seeking lawful entry, and that a noncitizen who has already entered the country unlawfully years earlier is not seeking such entry, regardless of being deemed an "applicant for admission" under the statute's separate deeming provision. Joining six other circuits and deepening a split with the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, the Court rejected the government's argument that the deeming provision extends to "seeking admission" as well, and found further support in the statutory redundancies the government's reading would create with § 1226(c)'s recently expanded mandatory-detention provisions.

The full text of Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-2152P-01A.pdf

First Circuit Grants Partial Stay of Order Blocking USCIS Benefits Re-Review Policy

The First Circuit has granted in part the government's request to stay a district court order that had blocked three USCIS policies challenged by refugee resettlement and labor organizations under the Administrative Procedure Act, limiting the stay to the agency's "Comprehensive Re-Review Policy" directing a re-review of approved benefit requests for nationals of certain countries who entered on or after January 20, 2021.

Applying the traditional four-factor stay standard, the Court found the government had not met its burden as to the other two challenged policies, allowing the district court's stay of those policies to remain in effect while the appeal proceeds.

The full text of Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/26-1703P-01A.pdf

BIA Remands Where Credibility and Internal Relocation Findings Were Insufficiently Explained

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to a Nicaraguan respondent, holding that the immigration judge's favorable credibility finding did not adequately address several apparent inconsistencies in the respondent's testimony and corroborating evidence, including conflicting accounts of a 2018 protest and unresolved questions about the availability of arrest warrants.

The Board also held that the immigration judge failed to sufficiently analyze whether the respondent's several years living elsewhere in Nicaragua without incident rebutted the presumption of future persecution through internal relocation, and remanded for the agency to reassess credibility, corroboration, and relocation under the correct framework.

The full text of Matter of H-I-A-H- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1456346/dl?inline

Eleventh Circuit Holds an EOIR Disciplinary Complaint Satisfies the Lozada Bar Complaint Requirement

The Eleventh Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan man whose motion to reopen for ineffective assistance of counsel was denied because he reported his attorney to the immigration court's own disciplinary counsel rather than to a state bar.

The Court held that nothing in Matter of Lozada limits the "appropriate disciplinary authority" requirement to state bars, and that a complaint filed with EOIR's disciplinary counsel, which now has robust sanction authority modeled on the ABA Model Rules, both strictly and substantially complies with Lozada's purposes of deterring meritless claims and policing the immigration bar. The Court joined the majority of circuits in holding that substantial compliance with Lozada is sufficient and vacated the BIA's denial of reopening.

The full text of Pasqual-Andres v. U.S. Attorney General can be found here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202212848.pdf

Eighth Circuit Invalidates Departure Bar on Statutory Motions to Reopen

The Eighth Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Filipino lawful permanent resident removed based on two since-vacated California convictions, holding that the regulatory "departure bar" cannot be used to deny a statutory motion to reopen filed after the noncitizen has already been removed.

Joining every other circuit to address the question, the Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) contains no geographic limitation on who may file a motion to reopen, and that the BIA's regulation barring post-departure motions conflicts with that statutory grant, especially now that Loper Bright forecloses deference to the agency's contrary interpretation. The Court remanded for the BIA to consider the merits of the motion, which is based on the vacatur of the petitioner's underlying criminal convictions, while confirming that courts still lack jurisdiction to review the separate denial of sua sponte reopening.

The full text of Lacsina v. Blanche can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/08/243373P.pdf

Sixth Circuit Adopts Probable Cause Standard for the Serious Nonpolitical Crime Bar

The Sixth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Brazilian man who shot and seriously injured his nephew during a car chase, holding as a matter of first impression that the statutory phrase "serious reasons for believing" a nonpolitical crime was committed requires no more than a finding of probable cause.

Joining the majority of circuits to address the question, the Court held that the government met its probable cause burden through the petitioner's outstanding attempted murder charge and his own admitted conduct, and that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he lacked the requisite intent or acted in justified self-defense. The Court separately upheld the denial of CAT protection, agreeing that the petitioner's connections to a criminal gang through his nephew were too limited and speculative to establish a likelihood of official acquiescence in torture.

The full text of Spindola v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0222p-06.pdf

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

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