Ninth Circuit Holds In Absentia Order Violated Due Process Where

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Mexican man ordered removed in absentia after the government's only hearing notice was mailed to a residential address his relatives provided on a bond form asking where he would "reside," not his mailing address, and the notice was returned undeliverable.

The Court held that the government violated due process by relying on an address obtained by asking the wrong person the wrong question, and by taking no further steps after the notice came back undeliverable, particularly where the petitioner's sworn, uncontradicted statement said he had told the court his address to receive notices. The Court found additional practicable alternatives were obviously available, such as calling the phone number on the bond form, and remanded without need for further factfinding. A dissenting judge argued the record did not actually show the petitioner gave the government a correct mailing address and would have remanded to the agency to determine in the first instance what alternative notice steps were practicable.

The full text of Meza Medina v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/18/20-70017.pdf

Seventh Circuit Denies Petition for Failure to Exhaust Arguments Before the Board

The Seventh Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican mother and her children who fled after the Knights Templar cartel threatened to kidnap the children unless a ransom was paid, holding that the petitioner forfeited her arguments on appeal by failing to adequately develop them before the Board.

Although the immigration judge found the petitioner credible, the Court held that her four-paragraph brief to the Board never articulated her proposed social group, never engaged with the judge's finding that the cartel's threats were motivated by ordinary extortion rather than a protected ground, and never challenged the judge's findings on internal relocation or an objectively reasonable fear of future harm. Because exhaustion requires presenting an argument with enough detail to give the Board a fair opportunity to address it, not merely referencing the adverse ruling, the Court held her asylum, withholding, and CAT claims were all foreclosed.

The full text of Gonzalez Perez v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D09-08/C:23-2811:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:3604650:S:0

Second Circuit Holds Reinstatement Orders Are Reviewable and CBP May Reopen Them

The Second Circuit has denied in part and granted in part a petition for review filed by a Brazilian man detained under a 2017 reinstated removal order, reaffirming that reinstatement orders are final orders of removal subject to judicial review.

The Court held that the petitioner's direct challenge to his six-year-old reinstatement order was untimely and that he failed to show the diligence needed for equitable tolling but separately held that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 gives CBP authority to reopen or reconsider its own reinstatement decisions, rejecting the government's argument that the regulation is limited to USCIS benefits proceedings. Because CBP denied the petitioner's motion solely on the mistaken belief that it lacked any mechanism to reopen a reinstatement order, the Court remanded for the agency to consider the motion on its merits.

The full text of Santos v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-7191_complete_opn.pdf

Second Circuit Holds Conspiracy to Present a Baseless Immigration Document Is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

The Second Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Filipino lawful permanent resident convicted of knowing making or presenting materially false statements to immigration authorities, which categorically constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude.

The Court held that knowingly presenting to immigration authorities a required document that the presenter knows lacks any reasonable basis in law or fact is inherently deceitful conduct that impairs an important government function, satisfying the BIA's two-part definition of moral turpitude, which the Court adopted as its own post-Loper Bright. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the subclause could sweep in innocent conduct, explaining that his own hypotheticals, such as filing a meritless asylum application solely to access cancellation-of-removal proceedings, themselves qualified as CIMTs, and distinguished the statute from misprision of a felony, which the Court has previously held is not categorically a CIMT because it lacks any intent element.

The full text of Nemis v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-304_opn.pdf

BIA Holds Maduro's Removal From Power Is a Changed Country Condition Requiring Reassessment of Venezuelan Asylum Claims

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to a Venezuelan woman whose claim rested on her political opposition to former President Nicolás Maduro's government, holding that Maduro's January 2026 removal from power and the transfer of executive authority to an Interim Government constitute a change in country conditions that the immigration judge failed to adequately assess against the respondent's individual circumstances.

The Board held that a change in national leadership does not automatically eliminate a well-founded fear of persecution, since officials or security forces tied to a former regime may still pose a danger to a particular applicant, but that the immigration judge's conclusory statements that "the essence of the Maduro government remains" lacked the factual findings needed to support that conclusion here. The Board took administrative notice of the reopening of the U.S. embassy in Caracas and ongoing U.S.-brokered discussions toward a democratic transition and remanded for the judge to determine whether the individuals and institutions the respondent fears remain willing and able to target her under the new political circumstances. The Board also flagged that the judge never resolved whether the respondent's asylum application, filed under her own name only in March 2026 despite having been a derivative beneficiary on her husband's 2015 filing, satisfied the one-year filing deadline or an exception to it, and remanded for that threshold question to be addressed first.

The full text of Matter of A-E-V-M- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1460306/dl?inline

BIA Vacates Asylum Grant for Failure to Address Numerous Credibility Inconsistencies

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to an Afghan respondent who claimed persecution by the Taliban based on his imputed political opinion as a women's-rights advocate, holding that the immigration judge's credibility finding failed to grapple with numerous unresolved inconsistencies in the record.

The Board identified conflicting testimony about when the respondent's problems with the Taliban began, contradictions regarding his employment history and payment for his advocacy work, inconsistencies between his hearing testimony and credible fear interview about how he identified his captors, and unexplained discrepancies concerning his travel through multiple countries before reaching the United States, including how he obtained visas to Germany and Austria along the way. Because an immigration judge must consider the totality of the circumstances in evaluating credibility, the Board remanded for a fuller credibility analysis before any reassessment of the respondent's asylum, withholding, and CAT claims.

The full text of Matter of A-Q-R-K- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1459986/dl?inline

BIA Overrules Prior Precedent, Allows Notice to Appear to Be Mailed to an Address Provided Before Its Issuance

The Board of Immigration Appeals, sitting en banc, has overruled its own quarter-century-old precedent and held that DHS may serve a notice to appear by regular mail at the most recent address a noncitizen provided to the agency, even if that address was given before the notice to appear itself was issued.

The Board held that its prior decision had created an unworkable paradox by requiring an address to first be validated by a notice to appear's own advisals before it could be used to mail that very notice, an interpretation the Board found inconsistent with the statute's plain text permitting service by regular mail and with nearly all noncitizens' independent, ongoing obligation to keep their address current. Two members dissented, arguing the prior rule was faithful to the statute's specific in absentia provisions and that the majority's own cited statistics, showing dramatically rising numbers of in absentia orders over the past decade, undercut any claim that the old rule was unworkable.

The full text of Matter of Diji can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1460146/dl?inline

D.C. Circuit Holds White House Shooter's Property-Destruction Conviction Was a Crime of Violence

The D.C. Circuit has affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate a firearm-during-a-crime-of-violence conviction obtained against a man who fired multiple rounds at the White House, holding that his underlying conviction for willfully and maliciously injuring a dwelling within federal jurisdiction categorically involves the use of physical force against another's property.

Tracing the statute's roots to nineteenth-century arson law and the common-law offense of malicious mischief, the Court held that injuring a dwelling requires material impairment inflicted intentionally and for a wrongful purpose, and that the Supreme Court's decisions in Johnson v. United States and Delligatti v. United States establish that intentionally causing such impairment necessarily involves the use of physical force. The Court also held the statute's historical pedigree confirms it reaches only injury to someone else's property, not one's own, satisfying the force clause's requirement that the property belong to "another."

The full text of United States v. Ortega-Hernandez can be found here: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/09/24-3023-2190849.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Noncitizen Must Be Allowed to Testify Before Being Bound by Counsel's Pleading Admission

The Ninth Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Mexican man whose attorney's written pleading admitted that he entered the country without inspection, holding that the agency abused its discretion by refusing to let him testify that the admission was factually incorrect before denying his motion to amend the pleading.

The Court held that under BIA and circuit precedent, a noncitizen may withdraw a formal attorney admission by proving it untrue, and that the immigration judge's summary denial of the motion to amend, without allowing any testimony on the point, deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to make that showing. The Court also held the BIA impermissibly usurped the immigration judge's factfinding role by independently concluding, based on a cold record, that the petitioner's account conflicted with other evidence, and remanded for the immigration judge to hear live testimony and resolve the credibility question in the first instance.

The full text of Urias-Gaxiola v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/02/22-1474.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Agency Cannot Demand Corroboration for a Credible Motion to Reopen an In Absentia Order

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan man ordered removed in absentia after arriving five minutes late to his hearing because of a flat tire, holding that the agency erred by requiring him to corroborate his account with documentary evidence and by faulting him for not submitting a formal affidavit.

The Court held that pro se petitioners need not submit a formal affidavit, and that because motions to reopen are decided without a hearing, the agency must accept a petitioner's account as true unless it is inherently unbelievable, without requiring independent corroboration. The Court remanded for the agency to reconsider the motion under the correct evidentiary standard.

The full text of Trigueros Quizar v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/04/24-4847.pdf

Eighth Circuit Holds Equitable Tolling Unavailable for the Petition for Review Deadline

The Eighth Circuit has dismissed a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan man challenging only the denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review a standalone CAT order and that, in any event, his petition was untimely by roughly five years measured from his final administrative removal order.

The Court held that a CAT order never merges into a final order of removal and so cannot independently support jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), joining the Eleventh and Ninth Circuits. Splitting from the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, the Court also held that the thirty-day filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a mandatory claims-processing rule not subject to equitable tolling, reasoning that Congress's use of "must" and "not later than" and its goal of expediting removal for noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies rebut the ordinary presumption favoring tolling.

The full text of B.P. v. Blanche can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/09/252778P.pdf

Eighth Circuit Holds It Lacks Jurisdiction Over a Standalone Negative Reasonable Fear Finding

The Eighth Circuit has dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a petition for review filed by a Mexican woman challenging an immigration judge's affirmance of an asylum officer's negative reasonable fear determination, which barred her from pursuing withholding-only proceedings after her prior removal order was reinstated.

The Court held that a decision finding no reasonable fear neither concludes that the noncitizen is deportable nor disturbs the validity of the underlying reinstated removal order, so it does not merge into or constitute a final order of removal reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). The Court expressly disagreed with a contrary Third Circuit majority decision and noted that the petitioner had chosen not to separately petition for review of the reinstatement order itself.

The full text of Sebastian-Perez v. Blanche can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/09/251691P.pdf

Eighth Circuit Holds Texas Robbery Conviction Is Not a Sentencing Guidelines Crime of Violence

The Eighth Circuit has vacated a felon-in-possession sentence enhanced based on a prior Texas robbery conviction, holding that the offense does not qualify as a crime of violence because it can be committed with a reckless mental state.

The full text of United States v. Benavidez can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/09/252497P.pdf

Seventh Circuit Holds Wisconsin Child Neglect Conviction Is Categorically a Crime of Child Abuse

The Seventh Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican woman found ineligible for cancellation of removal based on a Wisconsin misdemeanor conviction for neglecting a child, holding that the offense is a categorical match to the federal removability ground for a crime of child abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

Joining the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits, the Court held that the federal ground should be read as a single, unified category requiring only a culpable mental state of at least criminal negligence and an act or omission creating a reasonable probability of harm to a child. Because Wisconsin's statute requires proof of intentional conduct, a higher mens rea than the federal floor, and does not require that the child actually suffer any injury, the Court held the state offense sweeps no more broadly than the federal ground and denied the petition.

The full text of Reynoso-Salgado v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D09-01/C:23-2628:J:Jackson-Akiwumi:aut:T:fnOp:N:3601340:S:0

Fifth Circuit Affirms Denial of Cancellation and VAWA Special Cancellation Based on Unreviewable Factual Findings

The Fifth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Nigerian man seeking both ordinary cancellation of removal based on his current wife's medical conditions and special VAWA cancellation based on abuse by a prior wife, holding that the agency's hardship and battery-or-extreme-cruelty determinations were supported by substantial evidence.

Joining several sister circuits, the Court adopted a substantial-evidence standard for reviewing both the exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship determination under ordinary cancellation and the battery-or-cruelty and hardship determinations under special VAWA cancellation, following the Supreme Court's reasoning in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi. Applying that standard, the Court held the record did not compel a finding that the petitioner's current wife would face hardship beyond what is ordinarily expected from removal, and that his prior wife's mistreatment, including name-calling, minor burns, and threats to report him to immigration authorities, did not rise to the level of battery or extreme cruelty required by the statute.

The full text of Okene v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60559-CV0.pdf

Third Circuit Denies Fourth Attempt to Reopen a 2011 Removal Order Based on a 2023 Circuit Decision

The Third Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Dominican lawful permanent resident seeking, for the fourth time, to reopen a removal order that became final in 2011, holding that a change in law is never a basis for statutory reopening and that his separate motion for reconsideration was untimely by roughly thirteen years.

The Court held that the text of the statutory reopening provision requires "new facts" proven through evidentiary material, not a subsequent judicial decision interpreting an existing statute, and that permitting equitable tolling of that avenue based on later case law would collapse the deliberate distinction Congress drew between reopening and reconsideration. The Court also held that a recent Second Circuit decision interpreting the New York drug statute underlying the petitioner's removal order was not the kind of extraordinary circumstance that could excuse his years-late reconsideration motion, and that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary denial of sua sponte reopening.

The full text of Aristy-Rosa v. Attorney General can be found here: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/251490p1.pdf

Third Circuit Grants En Banc Rehearing on Jurisdiction to Review Standalone CAT Claims

The Third Circuit has granted the government's petition for rehearing en banc and vacated its earlier panel decision holding that the court has jurisdiction to review a CAT-only claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), setting the case for argument in October before the full court.

The order denies the petitioner's own rehearing petition but grants the government's, reopening the question that has split circuits and produced pointed disagreement within the Third Circuit itself, including a recent concurrence in a separate case arguing that no statutory basis exists for reviewing a CAT-only petition absent a challenge to the underlying final order of removal. Petitioner must file a supplemental brief responding to the government's arguments by September 21.

The full text of Laureano v. Attorney General can be found here: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/242433po.pdf

First Circuit Denies Cancellation of Removal Where Child's Asthma Was Treatable

The First Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran father seeking cancellation of removal based on hardship to his two U.S. citizen children, one of whom suffers from asthma, holding that the immigration judge properly applied the BIA's hardship factors and that her underlying factual findings about the severity and treatability of the child's condition were unreviewable.

The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to revisit the judge's factual findings that the son's asthma was under control and that the father failed to show he could not obtain or afford treatment in El Salvador, but retained jurisdiction to confirm the judge had not simply ignored the medical evidence. Because the judge expressly discussed the son's medications, hospitalizations, and the family's finances before concluding that the cumulative hardship fell short of the exceptional and extremely unusual standard, the Court found no legal error and denied the petition.

The full text of Espinoza Benitez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-2029P-01A.pdf

BIA Upholds Civil Penalty for Overstaying a Voluntary Departure Order Issued Decades Earlier

The Board of Immigration Appeals has dismissed the appeal of an Indian respondent fined $3,000 for failing to depart the United States within thirty days of a 2004 Board decision reinstating his grant of voluntary departure, rejecting his arguments that he lacked adequate notice and that the statute requires a willful failure to depart.

The Board held that both the immigration judge's and the Board's own orders expressly included the mandatory statutory notice of penalties, that notice to counsel of record satisfies due process regardless of the respondent's own language proficiency, and that the statute's plain terms impose the penalty for any voluntary failure to depart without requiring proof of willfulness. The Board also held that the $3,000 penalty complied with the statute and the regulations..

The full text of Matter of R-P-L- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1459551/dl?inline

BIA Holds Immigration Judges Lack Jurisdiction to Redetermine Bond After a Final Removal Order

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from an immigration judge's order releasing a respondent on a $1,500 bond after she had already been granted CAT protection and become subject to an administratively final removal order, holding that immigration judges generally lack jurisdiction to conduct custody redeterminations once a removal order becomes final.

The Board held that post-removal-period detention is governed exclusively by DHS's own regulatory custody-review process and, per the Supreme Court's decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis and Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, does not entitle a detained noncitizen to a bond hearing before an immigration judge, with the sole exception of DHS's own referral of special-circumstances cases. The Board vacated the bond order, noting that the respondent's proper avenues for relief are a custody review request to DHS or a habeas corpus petition in federal district court.

The full text of Matter of W-F-D- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1459006/dl?inline