These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined the acquiescence standard for CAT protection differs from the unable-or-unwilling standard for asylum and withholding of removal; the potential for private actor violence coupled with a speculation that police cannot or will not help is insufficient to prove acquiescence.
The full text of Matter of M-S-I-I can be found here:
The Tenth Circuit has issued a decision addressing a visa denial to a worship leader, and how the doctrine of consular nonreviewability intersects with the First Amendment rights of American citizens to hire a religious worker. First, the court determined that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s (RFRA) cause of action does not expressly authorize federal court of review of consular officers’ visa decisions. The court then concluded that the consulate has provided a bona fide and legitimate reason for denying the applicant’s visa by citing the fraud and misrepresentation inadmissibility statute. This citation was also supported by evidence in the record that the applicant had received honoraria while in the United States on a tourist visa. Finally, the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged bad faith because did not allege that the officer did not in good faith believe the information that he had.
The full text of Calvary Albuquerque v. Rubio can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111230435.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that a Massachusetts conviction for unarmed assault with intent to rob or steal is an attempted theft-related aggravated felony. The court rejected the argument that a conviction could be obtained when a defendant stole property with the victim’s fraudulently obtained consent. “The [jury] instruction states that the taking of property must be against the victim’s will for a defendant to be convicted of robbery. In other words, a person can’t commit robbery in Massachusetts through fraud or embezzlement.” “We find that the force element of Massachusetts’s unarmed assault statute excludes the possibility that a person may be convicted of that offense for a taking committed with the victim’s consent.”'
The full text of Baptista v. Bondi can be found here:
The First Circuit has remanded a motion to reopen filed by applicants for cancellation of removal. “It is unclear whether the BIA concluded that (1) as a matter of fact, Petitioners failed to corroborate their assertions about the serious educational hardship L.C. would face in Guatemala, or (2) as a matter of law, L.C.'s claimed hardship would not be exceptional and extremely unusual even if it were corroborated.” “If the BIA meant to hold that Petitioners provided insufficient factual corroboration for their claim that L.C. would be deprived of an education in Guatemala, it did not explain its reason for so holding. In particular, the BIA does not appear to have addressed the salient aspects of the country conditions evidence that would seem to support the claimed hardship if considered in light of L.C.'s individual circumstances.”
The full text of Garcia v. Bondi can be found here:
https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1296P-01A.pdf
The First Circuit has remanded an Ecuadorian woman's asylum claim, finding that the agency failed to engage in the appropriate “mixed motives” analysis. “Testimony identifying a non-protected motivation animating an asylum applicant's persecutor is therefore insufficient in and of itself to defeat an asylum claim. That principle applies with particular force when, as here, an asylum applicant was persecuted during childhood, as rarely will an applicant know the exact motivation of her persecutors -- especially when she was victimized as a young child -- and, of course, persecutors may often have more than one motivation."
The full text of Mayancela Guaman v. Bondi can be found here:
https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1295P-01A.pdf
The Third Circuit has upheld the discretionary denial of asylum to an applicant who entered the US using a passport and ESTA in someone else’s name, who had no family members that he could immigrate as asylee derivatives.
The full text of Thankarasa v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that if the 60th day of a voluntary departure period falls on a weekend, the deadline to depart is extended to the next business day.
The full text of Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed a grant of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture to a Salvadoran former gang member. While acknowledging that perceived gang members are subject to widespread arrest in El Salvador, the Board stated that, “[t]he evidence the Immigration Judge relied upon does not evaluate whether there are characteristics or circumstances that make certain classes of detainees, such as deportees from the United States, any more or less likely to be victims of torture. Further, the applicant has not shown that the majority of current or former gang members detained in El Salvador are likely to suffer harm satisfying the legal definition of torture, such that he would need to show nothing more than gang affiliation and a likelihood of detention to meet his burden of proof.”
The full text of Matter of A-A-R- can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has affirmed the denial of asylum to a former police officer, finding that the majority of the harm he experienced took place while he was a police officer, and thus, was not related to his status as a “former” officer.
“The respondent has not established that the FARC has any desire to punish or overcome his status as a former police officer, or any animus toward former police officers as a group. The respondent’s feared future harm is based on the physical assault and subsequent threat he received by the FARC when he was a then-serving police officer. The Immigration Judge found, and the respondent admitted, that the FARC targeted him because of his involvement in a law enforcement operation that confiscated military materials and cattle held by the rebel group and compromised their criminal enterprise—official actions that a former police officer would no longer be authorized to conduct.”
“Reprisals against former police officers as a class (for example, after a coup or revolution) may give rise to asylum eligibility. However, the respondent here established only that the FARC harmed him in the past and may harm him in the future to punish him because of official acts he took as a then-current police officer. Harm inflicted on account of specific conduct as a then-current police officer is distinct from harm inflicted on account of membership in a group of former police officers.”
“Where a particular social group is defined by ‘former’ status, Immigration Judges must ensure the persecutor’s conduct was based on a desire to overcome or animus toward the respondent’s membership in a group defined specifically by that former status, not retribution for conduct the respondent engaged in while a current member of the group.“
The full text of Matter of O-A-R-G- can be found here:
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
