These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
The Sixth Circuit has determined that a District Court has no jurisdiction to naturalize a non-citizen who is currently in removal proceedings. “In sum, when a noncitizen is concurrently subject to removal and naturalization proceedings, removal takes priority. “
The full text of Ebu v. USCIS can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0093p-06.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has clarified that a motion to reopen to seek a marriage-based adjustment of status “does not require that the petitioner establish by clear and convincing evidence that his marriage was in fact bona fide; it requires only that the respondent establish a ‘strong likelihood’ that he would be able to demonstrate that his marriage was bona fide should the BIA grant his motion to reopen.”
The full text of Hussen v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/231047.P.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that a Virginia conviction petit larceny qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). “Chavez latches onto the ‘reasonable basis’ language to argue that Virginia will convict a defendant who honestly but unreasonably believed the taken property was abandoned.” The court concluded that “none of the cases Chavez cites change that larceny requires an intent to permanently deprive and that this criminal intent may be negated by a good faith claim of right.”
The court also addressed the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright on the definition of a CIMT. “Loper Bright doesn’t wipe away the results of our prior decisions deferring to the Board’s reasonable interpretations of what constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. But it does mean that any Board guidance serves only as persuasive authority.” With that in mind, the Court determined that “the Board’s interpretation in Diaz Lizarraga on the moral turpitude of theft ‘is entitled to respect.’”
The full text of Chavez v. Bondi can be found here:
The First Circuit has remanded a cancellation of removal case, finding that the agency failed to consider a crucial psychological report about the qualifying relative’s psychological hardship and history of trauma.
The full text of Lopez v. Bondi can be found here:
https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/22-1538P-01A.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that when an Immigration Judge renders an oral decision, and later sends out a written summary of the decision, the 30-day appeal deadline runs from the date of the oral decision.
The full text of Matter of Iskandarani can be found here:
The First Circuit has confirmed that the social distinction requirement for a particular social group does not equate with “ocular visibility.”
The full text of Alvarez Mendoza v. Bondi can be found here:
ttps://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1112P-01A.pdf
The California Court of Appeals, Second District, has determined that an asylee with a history of mental illness did not meaningfully understand the mandatory immigration consequences of his plea, when his defense counsel’s notes indicated a discussion only about potential consequences. The court made this finding despite the execution of a plea form advising the defendant that his plea would cause immigration consequences, and despite the prosecutor stating during the plea colloquy that the District Attorney’s Office would not offer an immigration neutral plea in the matter.
“Padron’s declaration and his public defender’s case notes both support that Padron was unaware his conviction carried these mandatory immigration consequences. Padron attested his attorney did not inquire into his immigration status or discuss ‘all of the immigration consequences of my conviction.’ According to the case notes, Padron’s public defender advised only of unspecified, ‘potential’ immigration consequences. Counsel’s notes reflect Padron received this advice on the date of the plea hearing, although counsel discussed a potential plea deal more than two weeks before. The notes also do not reflect Padron’s attorney knew of his asylum status or consulted any relevant immigration resources. Under these circumstances, counsel’s ‘failure to give accurate and complete advice about the specific consequences of the plea agreement,’ including mandatory detention, denial of naturalization, and deportation to a country the immigration court had found subjected Padron to persecution, was error impeding Padron’s ability to understand and knowingly accept the consequences of his no-contest plea.”
The court remanded the case with orders that the trial court grant the motion to vacate.
The full text of People v. Padron can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that a conviction that requires the infliction of bodily harm through an omission still requires the type of intentional violent force required by the definition of a crime of violence.
The full text of Delligatti v. United States can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the language of a state conviction and an asserted ground of deportability (in this case, a controlled substance violation) should be compared as they were written at the time of the non-citizen’s conviction. Thus, any post-conviction revisions to the Controlled Substance Act were not relevant to whether the non-citizen was deportable.
The full text of Matter of Dor can be found here:
https://www.justice.gov/d9/2025-03/4088.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a declaration is not a required component of an asylum application, and as such, an Immigration Judge may not deem an asylum application abandoned for failure to file a declaration.
“This does not mean that Immigration Judges cannot require an applicant to submit a declaration, or that an applicant can disregard a directive from an Immigration Judge to file one. Immigration Judges may require applicants to submit declarations in support of asylum applications, and to do so within a specified time, just as they have the authority to direct submission of briefs, evidence, and other papers, and to set and enforce deadlines for doing so. However, a declaration supplements an asylum application without forming a constituent part of it. Therefore, the remedy for failing to file one when so directed is limited to the declaration (or other supplemental document) itself. If a supplemental document is not timely filed, the opportunity to file it is waived. In some instances, the failure to file a document may be dispositive. But the effect of an absent declaration or other supplemental document goes to the merits of the application, not its completeness.”
The full text of Matter of C-A-R-R- can be found here:
The Eleventh Circuit has found that federal courts lack jursidiction to review USCIS’s policy of deferring adjudication of an adjustment of application when the underlying visa category has retrogressed. “We conclude that the challenged USCIS action here—delaying the grant of Form I-485 applications when the Department of State indicates that annual visa limits have been reached—falls within § 1255(a)’s statutory grant of discretion. And challenges to that delay are barred by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).”
The full text of Kanapuram v. Director, USCIS can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202312826.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the agency may permissibly render an adverse credibility determination when an asylum claim presents not only similar factual circumstances to multiple other cases, but nearly identifical word choice and narrative structure. “The upshot is that the linguistic, narrative, and factual similarities between Singh’s declaration and the declarations presented by DHS go beyond mere coincidence and cannot be explained away by the fact that these petitioners lived in similar situations in India. At a minimum, the IJ could so reasonably conclude. The narratives are nearly identical and, in some instances, are delivered with word-for-word repetition.”
The full text of Singh v. Bondi can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/17/23-1247.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has rejected a non-citizen’s argument that she is not deportable for a controlled substance violation because the North Dakota statute in effect at the time of her conviction included hemp in the definition of marijuana while the federal definition in effect at the time of her removal proceedings excluded hemp. The Court also rejected the argument that the North Dakota definition of marijuana is overbroad as compared to the federal definition because the federal definition includes only “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.,” while the North Dakota definition is not limited to a specific species, finding that the federal definition of cannabis extended to all “marihuana-producing Cannabis.”
The full text of Salinas v. Bondi can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/03/232779P.pdf
The First Circuit has remanded a cancellation of removal case, finding that the agency failed to evaluate how the qualifying relative’s specific learning disabilities would influence the hardship he would suffer if his parents were deported.
The full text of Duarte de Martinez v. Bondi can be found here:
https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1057P-01A.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Washington conviction for first-degree child molestation is a categorical match to the definition of abusive sexual conduct involving a minor for federal sentencing purposes because it involves sexual touching with minors under twelve years old. Given the alignment between the definition of abusive sexual conduct for sentencing purposes and a sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felony, this case will have impact on immigration proceedings as well.
The full text of U.S. v. Thompson can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/02/10/23-2288.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a petitioner’s A number is sufficient identification in a petition for review to comply with the federal rules of appellate procedure. “These ‘A’ numbers are not generic terms referencing unknown and potentially unidentifiable individuals, such as the procedural titles listed in the text of Rule 15, but rather correspond to specific persons who have raised claims before the agency for adjudication and whose names are readily available in the government’s own records, including BIA orders which must be submitted to this court with the petition for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 15-4. “
The full text of Perez-Perez v. Bondi can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/02/10/23-4240.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the Roma are a disfavored ethnic group in Romania for asylum and withholding of removal purposes. The Court also reaffirmed that shootings, attempted kidnappings, and attempted rapes are all forms of physical harm that almost always rise to the level of persecution.
The full text of Lapadat v. Bondi can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/02/12/23-1745.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an Oregon conviction for first degree criminal mistreatment is a crime involving moral turpitude because it requires knowingly depriving a dependent of basic care.
The Court also found that an Oregon conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon is overbroad as compared to a deportable firearms offense because the statute criminalizes possession of antique firearms. However, the statute is divisible between various subsections, some of which do not involve antique firearms. These subsections match the definition of a deportabel firearms offense.
The Court also overruled its prior precedent that a grant of SIJS constitutes an admission for cancellation of removal purposes.
The full text of Murillo-Chavez v. Bondi can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/02/13/21-1422.pdf
The Sixth Circuit has determined that the agency’s hardship determinations related to an unlawful presence waiver (212(a)(9)(B)(v)) and a fraud waiver (212(i)) are not reviewable by a federal court. Unlike the hardship determination for a cancellation of removal case, which is a mixed question of fact and law, hardship determinations related to these waivers are committed exclusively to the Attorney General.
The full text of Rahman v. Bondi can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0058p-06.pdf
The Third Circuit has determined that the substantial evidence standard applies to a federal court’s review of the agency’s hardship finding in a cancellation of removal case.
The full text of Wilkinson v. Attorney General can be found here:
