Tenth Circuit Finds APA Jurisdiction to Review USCIS Decision to Terminate Refugee Status

The Tenth Circuit has determined that federal courts have jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act to review USCIS’s decision to terminate refugee status.

“We first consider 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(4), the provision under which USCIS terminated Mukantagara’s refugee status. As we interpret it, that provision provides a two-step process. At step one, USCIS evaluates whether the noncitizen meets the statute’s eligibility requirement of not being a ‘refugee’ when admitted into the United States. At step two, USCIS has discretion to terminate the refugee status of any noncitizen who is eligible at step one. After that, we consider whether the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provision at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers a district court’s review of USCIS’s eligibility determination at the above step one. We conclude that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) applies only to discretionary actions and that the eligibility determination under § 1157(c)(4)’s step one is not discretionary.”

“When the INA directs immigration agencies to assess statutory eligibility criteri in a first step before exercising discretion in a second, the first step is not discretionary. Section 1157(c)(4)’s first step requires the agency to assess eligibility before deciding to terminate refugee status. Section 1157(c)(4)’s first step is nondiscretionary.“

The full text of Mukantagara v. Noem can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111366275.pdf

Tenth Circuit Finds that CA Child Pornography Conviction does not Match Federal Definition of Child Pornography Crime

The Tenth Circuit has determined that a California conviction for possession of child pornography does not match the federal definition of a crime involving child pornography because “the statute covers nonexplicit images of children with no focus on the child’s intimate areas—for example, an image that depicts an adult simply hugging a fully clothed child where the adult had the intent to be aroused.”

The full text of United States v. Griffin can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111367340.pdf

Tenth Circuit Finds that OK Assault and Battery with Dangerous Weapon is not Categorically Crime of Violence

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

Ninth Circuit Concludes that Honduran Government was Unable or Unwilling to Protect Victim of Gender Violence

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

Ninth Circuit Rejects Per Se Rule that Traffic is Never Exceptional Circumstance

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 full text of Montejo-Gonzalez v. Bondi can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/02/05/21-304.pdf

Eighth Circuit Finds that North Dakota Robbery Conviction is Attempted Theft Aggravated Felony

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

Eighth Circuit Affirms Denial of IAC Claim

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 authorities.

The full text of Rodriguez Irias v. Bondi can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/02/251419P.pdf

Fifth Circuit Determines that all Non-citizens who Enter US without Inspection are Subject to Mandatory Detention

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

Fifth Circuit Affirms Agency's Determination that Harsh Prison Conditions in El Salvador are not Torture

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

An amended opinion - which the BIA determines that El Salvador’s harsh prison conditions are not specifically intended by the government to inflict torture. And although Salvadoran police officers previously tortured Fuentes-Pineda on two occasions, the BIA justifiably determined his future risk of torture is only speculative - can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60592-CV1.pdf

Fifth Circuit Finds that Affirmative Asylum Denial is not Final Agency Action

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

Fourth Circuit Finds that Father's Signature on Birth Certificate does not Establish Paternity by Legitimation

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

Third Circuit Determines that Federal Conviction for Attempted Murder of a Witness is a Crime of Violence

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:

www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/242020p.pdf

Second Circuit Remands Motion to Reopen

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

BIA Addresses when Death Threats Constitute Persecution

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

Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms Lozada Requirements

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

Ninth Circuit Certifies Questions about Drug Conviction to CA Supreme Court

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

Eighth Circuit Determines that Arkansas Definition of Cocaine is Broader than Definition in CSA

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

Third Circuit Finds Failure to Disclose Children on DV Lottery Application is Material Misrepresentation

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

BIA Affirms IJ Termination where DHS Failed to Prove Alienage

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

BIA Finds that Terms of 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between India and Nepal Constitutes Firm Resettlement of Nepali in India

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