These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
The Tenth Circuit has determined that an Oklahoma conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon is not categorically a crime of violence because it criminalizes assault on an unborn child.
The full text of United States v. Singer can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111374543.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an evidentiary record compels the conclusion that the Honduran government is unable or unwilling to protect a woman from violence perpetrated by her partner, who was also a gang member.
“The IJ observed that did not necessarily suggest the police would do the same if they arrested Oscar after beating Petitioner. Yet the record in this case strongly suggests that if the government took no meaningful action in that instance, when Oscar’s victim was a man, it was even less likely to take meaningful action when the victim was a woman. The conclusion compelled by Petitioner’s testimony concerning the danger she faced from Oscar, his violent outbursts when she sought refuge at church, and his death threats deterring her from reporting him, as well as by the country conditions report documenting uncontrollable violence against women in Honduras, is that an attempt to report would not only have been futile, it would also have been likely to result in further harm to Petitioner. Because the record compels the conclusion that the government of Honduras would be either unable or unwilling to protect Petitioner, this element of the asylum and withholding inquiries is satisfied.”
The full text of Guevara-Serrano v. Bondi can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/20/23-4420.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has rejected a per se rule that traffic can never be an exceptional circumstance that excuses missing a hearing in immigration court.
“We have never adopted a rule that traffic (or any other circumstance) is per se unexceptional. And we reject any bright-line rules about what can or cannot qualify as an exceptional circumstance because the statutory test depends on the totality of the circumstances in each petitioner’s case.”
“And more to the point, the fifteen-minute cushion petitioners gave themselves did not cause their failure to appear. Petitioners were two hours late for their hearing, and it was the two major accidents causing a ten-mile backup that caused them to be late. Even if they gave themselves an extra ninety minutes to get to court, they still would have been late because of the severe traffic that morning. Exercising diligence does not mean a petitioner must predict the very ‘extraordinary circumstance’ they contend caused their failure to appear. The BIA must consider petitioners’ diligence based on what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances, without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.'“
The Eighth Circuit has determined that North Dakota’s robbery statute matches the definition of an attempted theft aggravated felony, rejecting the claim that the statute covers crimes of deceit.
The full text of Banyee v. Bondi can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/01/243590P.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has affirmed the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because the attorney failed to provide proof that his self-reported bar complaint was actually sent to the relevant disciplinary authoritites.
The full text of Rodriguez Irias v. Bondi can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/02/251419P.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that all non-citizens who enter the United States without inspection are subject to mandatory detention under 8 USC 1225.
The full text of Buenrostro- Mendez v. Bondi can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20496-CV0.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has affirmed the agency’s determination that harsh prison conditions in El Salvador do not constitute torture. Some of the agency’s conclusions include:
-evidence is not sufficient to show that the dismal and harmful conditions of detention are specifically intended to torture
- pursuant to El Salvador’s State of Exception, Fuentes-Pineda would likely be detained and imprisoned upon his arrival
-the IJ was “unable to speculate” that deaths in Salvadoran prisons were “the result of extreme cruel and inhuman treatment rather than other causes such as substandard conditions of prison”
-evidence that the government is attempting to obfuscate the number of deaths does not necessarily indicate these deaths were specifically intended, rather than the result of of negligence caused by the overcrowded conditions
-advertising the poor conditions as a deterrent to criminal conduct is not inconsistent with attempts to improve those conditions as they currently exist
The full text of Fuentes-Pineda v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60592-CV0.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that asylum applicants protected by Temporary Protected Status cannot sue over the denial of their affirmative asylum applications because the denials are not final agency actions.
The full text of Sayegh de Kewayfati v. Bondi can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20073-CV0.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that a father’s signature on a Salvadoran birth certificate does not prove that the child’s paternity was established through legitimation. Thus, the child derived citizenship when his mother naturalized.
The full text of Lopez v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241208.P.pdf
The Third Circuit has determined that a conviction for attempted murder of a federal witness is a crime of violence because the government must necessarily prove that the defendant at least attempted to use physical force.
The full text of U.S. v. Smith can be found here:
The Second Circuit has remanded an untimely motion to reopen based on both post-conviction relief and a change in case law related to deportability. The “BIA abused its discretion in finding that Pinilla failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing his motion to reopen. In its decision, the BIA explained only that Pinilla was not entitled to tolling because he waited ‘approximately 2 years’ after New York revised its marijuana laws to file his motion. The agency’s stated justification is not the ‘minimum level of analysis’ that we require ‘if judicial review is to be meaningful.’ ‘[T]he test for equitable tolling, both generally and in the immigration context, is not the length of the delay in filing the [motion]; it is whether the claimant could reasonably have been expected to have filed earlier.’”
The full text of Pinilla Perez v. Bondi can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5b8de542-619b-4223-b191-466cb013720f/9/doc/23-6363_opn.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that death threats constitute persecution if they are objectively credible and issued by a person or persons with the immediate ability to carry them out. The standard is seemingly in line with circuit court precedent, but the application of the standard is extreme. The Board found that receipt of an anonymous death threat accompanied by the delivery of bullets was not sufficiently credible or imminent.
The full text of Matter of E-M-F-S- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1422766/dl?inline
The Eleventh Circuit has reaffirmed the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, finding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Lopez Bright did not undermine the case law relying on Lozada.
The full text of Gutierrez-Milan v. Attorney General can be found here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202413788.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has certified the following questions to the California Supreme Court: when a defendant is charged with possession of a listed controlled substance under California Health & Safety Code § 11378, must the state prove, and must the jury unanimously agree, that the defendant possessed the actual listed controlled substance, and not an analog of that substance as defined under California Health & Safety Code § 11401? Or may the jury convict if it finds the state has proven the defendant possessed either the actual controlled substance or an analog of that substance, without unanimous agreement as to which?
“If the California Supreme Court concludes that the state may prove a § 11378 charge for possession of a specified listed controlled substance (e.g., methamphetamine) by showing the defendant possessed either the actual specified listed substance or an analog of that substance, then Defendants would prevail. We would conclude that § 11378 is “both overbroad and indivisible” at step two, and “a prior conviction under that statute will never qualify as a predicate . . . offense under the federal sentencing guidelines.” But if the California Supreme Court concludes that the state must prove a § 11378 charge for possession of a specified listed controlled substance by showing the defendant possessed that actual substance and not an analog of that substance, then we will affirm the sentences.”
Thus, the resolution of this question could impact the immigration consequences of many different California drug convictions.
The full text of United States v. Soto can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/08/24-3903.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that Arkansas’ definition of cocaine is broader than the federal definition in the CSA because it criminalizes more isomers than the federal definition.
The full text of United States v. Ferguson can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/01/242178P.pdf
The Third Circuit has determined that an applicant’s failure to disclose his children on his diversity visa lottery application is material because their existence was relevant to whether he was inadmissible under the public charge ground.
The full text of Savane v. Secretary of DHS can be found here: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/243286p.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that where neither the respondent nor the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appears at the hearing and DHS does not present evidence of removability in advance of the hearing, the Immigration Judge does not err in terminating proceedings without prejudice.
The full text of Matter of Tepec-Garcia can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1421526/dl?inline
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the terms of the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between India and Nepal - which permit Nepali citizens to lives, work, and own property in India - constitute firm resettlement of a Nepali asylum seeker in India.
The full text of Matter of L-T-A- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1421286/dl?inline
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a cancellation applicant who sustained two DUI convictions during the good moral character period had not rebutted the presumption that he lacked good moral character because “[c]aring for his son and maintaining gainful employment do not constitute an ‘unusual case’ sufficient to ‘overcome the strong evidence’ that the respondent lacked good moral character based on recidivist conduct involving DWI offenses.”
The full text of Matter of Palma-Olvera can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1421101/dl?inline
The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed the grant of asylum to a political activist from an area of Moldova controlled by separatists. “The Immigration Judge’s finding was based on the fact that the respondent was issued a pretextual summons for his political activity and on country conditions evidence showing that the separatists controlling Transnistria have detained political activists and subjected them to severe harm. However, the Immigration Judge did not properly consider the respondent’s testimony that his son appeared pursuant to an identical summons and was released without incident. While we acknowledge the generalized country conditions evidence relied on by the Immigration Judge, the specific experience of the respondent’s son undermines his claim that he would be singled out for persecution based on the issuance of an identical summons. The fact that the respondent was able to remain in Moldova for several years without being physically harmed after the October 2021 beatings while continuing to publicly engage in political activity also significantly undermines his claim that he would be persecuted in the future. So does the respondent’s testimony that he was able to freely leave Moldova without incident.”
The full text of Matter of N-P-A- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1420981/dl?inline
