Skip to main content

Immigration Policy Tracking Project

Open main menu
– 1 —
BIA and AG Precedents Since January 2025
(Last updated: June 3, 2026)
This table lists every Trump 2.0 precedential immigration decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the
Attorney General (AG) issued since January 20, 2025. The chart is current as of the above date.*
Issuer. BIA decisions stating that the Attorney General “designated” them for publication are marked with a
“(D)” in the “Issuer” column. For more information on AG designation of decisions for publication, see IPTP
entry #2072.
Topics / Relief. This column notes key areas addressed in a decision; it may not capture every topic.
Judicial Decisions. This column lists federal judicial decisions discussing the published BIA or AG opinion.
The list is not exhaustive and may be revised periodically.
Notes / Commentary. This column links to some relevant commentary. Citation does not constitute
endorsement of the commentary or author.
The chart includes only BIA or AG opinions, not other matters that may be published in I & N Decisions.
An earlier chart containing some additional information was prepared by the National Immigration Project.
Some descriptive statistical summaries appear at the end of the chart here.
* Cases appear in order of formal I.D. number and date of issuance (“publication”), which do not necessarily correspond to the date appearing on the decision.
– 2 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
116
Mills
29 I&N Dec 668
2026
BIA
(D)
4201
The Immigration Judge erred in granting
cancellation of removal for certain
permanent residents as a matter of
discretion because the respondent’s
extensive criminal history outweighed his
equities.
●
●
115
N-A-G-C-
29 I&N Dec 662
2026
BIA
4200
Neither a previous designation as an
unaccompanied alien child (UAC) nor an
approved special immigrant juvenile (SIJ)
petition gives an Immigration Judge authority
to redetermine the custody status of an alien
who has not been admitted to the United
States. Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N
Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), followed.
●
●
114
Richards
29 I&N Dec 658
2026
BIA
4199
An alien’s lack of candor regarding his
criminal history is a significant adverse factor
when exercising discretion on an application
for cancellation of removal.
●
●
113
Martinez-
Rodriguez
29 I&N Dec. 656
2026
BIA
(D)
4198
The respondent’s conviction for false
imprisonment and his arrest on other
charges demonstrate that he is a danger to
the community and does not warrant release
on bond.
●
●
– 3 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
112
Nwagwu
29 I&N Dec. 651
2026
BIA
(D)
4197
Good and sufficient cause existed to revoke
the prior approval of a visa petition because
the record contained substantial and
probative evidence of marriage fraud
between the beneficiary and her prior
spouse.
●
●
111
Germain
29 I&N Dec. 648
2026
BIA
(D)
4196
The respondent’s criminal history, including
charges that did not result in a conviction,
and his reluctance to accept responsibility
for his criminal acts, outweigh the favorable
factors relevant to the exercise of discretion
for cancellation of removal.
●
●
110
A-H-D-
29 I&N Dec. 642
2026
BIA
4195
(1) The respondent’s 3-day detention during
which he was beaten once but did not
sustain significant injury does not rise to the
level of persecution.
(2) Although a government may generally
defer to tribal mechanisms for resolving tribal
conflict, doing so does not indicate the
government is unable or unwilling to control
persecutors within a tribe.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
– 4 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
109
L-A-D-
29 I&N Dec. 634
2026
BIA
4194
(1) The group “Mexican men with
Schizoaffective Disorder,” defined only by
such diagnosis, is not cognizable as a
particular social group under the Immigration
and Nationality Act.
(2) A series of speculative occurrences that
also lack evidence of persecutory intent is
insufficient to demonstrate a well-founded
fear of persecution.
●
●
108
I-B-M-S-
29 I&N Dec. 628
2026
BIA
4193
(1) The closer in time a change of venue
request is made to an individual hearing, the
less likely it is a party will be able to
establish good cause. Matter of Rahman, 20
I&N Dec. 480 (BIA 1992), followed.
(2) Off-the-record dialogue in immigration
proceedings should be limited, and the
Immigration Judge must provide a true and
complete summary of any off-the-record
discussion.
(3) An Immigration Judge must act as a
neutral and impartial arbiter, and the
obligation of neutrality extends equally to an
Immigration Judge’s treatment of both
parties.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
– 5 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
107
V-A-B-
29 I&N Dec. 621
2026
BIA
4192
(1) The proposed particular social group
defined as "married Mexican women who
are unable to leave their relationship" is not
cognizable under the Immigration and
Nationality Act because it is circularly
defined and lacks particularity.
(2) The existence of a lawful marriage
cannot be presumed simply because two
persons are cohabitating or have children in
common.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
106
C-P-Y-
29 I&N Dec. 610
2026
BIA
4191
The words "arrival" and "arrived" in the
serious nonpolitical crime bar provisions at
sections 208(b)(2)(A)(iii) and 241(b)(3)(B)(iii)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8
U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii),
1231(b)(3)(B)(iii), refer to the alien's most
recent arrival in the United States.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
● Practitioner
commentary.
105
J-E-L-
29 I&N Dec. 605
2026
BIA
4190
The respondent did not establish a claim for
protection under the Convention Against
Torture because he did not show a clear
probability of harm rising to the level of
torture by gang or cartel members in Mexico
and did not establish the requisite state
action for government acquiescence to
torture.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
– 6 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
104
Orozco
Becerra &
Orozco
Becerra
29 I&N Dec. 600
2026
BIA
4189
When respondents, including minor
respondents, fail to appear for their hearing
and the Department of Homeland Security
has established that they received proper
notice of the hearing and are removable as
charged, the Immigration Judge lacks
authority to administratively close removal
proceedings and must proceed in absentia
under section 240(b)(5)(A) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(A) (2018).
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
● Practitioner
commentary.
103
Shentu
29 I&N Dec. 595
2026
BIA
4188
An FBI Letterhead Memorandum indicating
that the respondent is a potential national
security risk warrants significant weight in
bond proceedings.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
102
Arana
Castillo
et al.
29 I&N Dec. 593
2026
BIA
(D)
4187
Where the respondents appear at an initial
master calendar hearing, but the Department
of Homeland Security does not, the
Immigration Judge errs in terminating
proceedings without taking the respondents'
pleadings to the notices to appear.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
● Practitioner
commentary.
101
Santiago-
Santiago
29 I&N Dec. 589
2026
BIA
4186
The Immigration Judge erred in terminating
removal proceedings based solely on the
fact that the respondent has been accorded
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA) and without considering the reasons
for any opposition to termination.
●
● ILW.com
commentary.
● RAICES
commentary.
● Practitioner
commentary.
●
– 7 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
100
E-N-N-
29 I&N Dec. 586
2026
BIA
(D)
4185
(1) The Immigration Judge clearly erred in
finding the respondent credible without
addressing inconsistencies and
implausibilities that were present in the
record.
(2) The Immigration Judge's conclusory
statement that there is a pattern or practice
of persecution against Anglophones in
Cameroon was not supported by record
evidence, particularly given the Immigration
Judge did not distinguish the respondent's
family members, who remain unharmed in
the country.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
99
R-A-U-
29 I&N Dec. 582
2026
BIA
(D)
4184
Based on inconsistencies and omissions in
the record, the Immigration Judge clearly
erred in concluding the applicant presented
a credible claim for asylum.
●
98
D-G-E-A- &
N-G-G-E-
29 I&N Dec. 570
2026
BIA
4183
(1) Disapproval of or opposition to criminal
gangs is not sufficient to establish a political
opinion under the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
(2) To establish a political opinion under the
INA, an alien must have an actual or
imputed belief or conviction regarding a
discrete cause that is tied to a government of
a country, including a de facto government.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
– 8 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
97
M-K-
29 I&N Dec. 556
2026
BIA
4182
(1) The Secretary of State’s letter that the
respondent’s presence in the United States
would have potentially serious adverse
foreign policy consequences is presumptive
and sufficient evidence that the respondent
is removable under section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(4)(C)(i) (2024).
(2) The respondent’s failure to disclose his
involvement with the United Nations Relief
and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees
on his Form I-485, Application to Register
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,
constitutes a material misrepresentation
rendering him removable under section
237(a)(1)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(1)(A).
(3) The Immigration Judge properly denied
the respondent’s application for a waiver
under section 237(a)(1)(H) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H), where equities in his
case were outweighed by the negative
factors, including the Secretary of State’s
letter that the respondent’s presence in the
United States would have potentially serious
adverse foreign policy consequences.
●
● This case was
originally
unpublished.
96
A-M-Z-F-
29 I&N Dec. 551
2026
BIA
4181
Parties in Immigration Court have no right to
give a closing argument unless they
demonstrate that the denial of such
argument would constitute a due process
violation.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
● Practitioner
commentary.
●
– 9 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
95
Bolivar-
Bolivar
29 I&N Dec. 548
2026
BIA
4180
Where the respondent is charged with being
in the United States without having been
admitted or paroled, neither the alien nor the
Department of Homeland Security appears
at the hearing, and the record contains
evidence of alienage, the Immigration Judge
errs in terminating removal proceedings
rather than proceeding with an in absentia
hearing.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
● Practitioner
commentary.
94
Pelagio
Mendoza
29 I&N Dec. 542
2026
BIA
4179
A respondent's or qualifying relative's
testimony about a medical or mental health
condition will generally be insufficient to
establish exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship where expert testimony, reports, or
medical evidence exist and could reasonably
have been produced.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
● Practitioner
commentary.
Practitioner
commentary.
– 10 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
93
Valenzuela
Gallardo
29 I&N Dec. 536
2026
BIA
4178
(1) “[A]n offense relating to obstruction of
justice” under section 101(a)(43)(S) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(43)(S) (2024), is a specific intent
offense involving an affirmative and
intentional attempt to interfere with the
process of justice and law. Matter of
Valenzuela Gallardo, 25 I&N Dec. 838 (BIA
2012), reaffirmed.
(2) A conviction for accessory to a felony
under section 32 of the California Penal
Code that results in a term of imprisonment
of at least 1 year categorically qualifies as
“an offense relating to obstruction of justice”
under section 101(a)(43)(S) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S).
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
92
Lopez-
Orellana
29 I&N Dec. 533
2026
BIA
4177
(1) An objection to the noncompliant notice
to appear is the respondent's, not the
Immigration Judge's, objection to raise and
is forfeited if not timely raised.
(2) If the Immigration Judge is satisfied that
the respondent, who has not appeared at a
scheduled hearing, is removable as charged
and received adequate notice of his missed
hearing despite the noncompliant notice to
appear, the Immigration Judge should
proceed in absentia rather than terminate
proceedings.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
● Practitioner
commentary
– 11 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
91
Mercado-
Martinez
29 I&N Dec. 529
2026
BIA
4176
Where an Immigration Judge finds that a
Form I-213 is unreliable and insufficient to
establish alienage, he or she must point to
specific evidence in the record sufficient to
rebut the presumption of reliability.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
90
Z-R-C-N-
29 I&N Dec. 523
2026
BIA
4175
(1) A respondent cannot succeed on her
ineffective assistance of counsel claim
where the individual she hired was not an
attorney and did not hold himself out to be
one.
(2) The minor respondents' eligibility for
adjustment of status based on an approved
special immigrant juvenile petition is
speculative considering the 4-year delay in
visa availability, and they have not
demonstrated prima facie eligibility for relief.
●
● This case was
originally
unpublished.
● ILW.com
commentary.
89
Arevalo-
Vargas
29 I&N Dec. 519
2026
BIA
(D)
4174
(1) The respondent's children are no longer
qualifying relatives for purposes of the
respondent's application for cancellation of
removal because they are now over 21
years old and have therefore aged out.
(2) The respondent has not demonstrated
that the economic detriment, diminished
educational opportunities, and emotional
hardship his children may experience in the
event of the respondent's removal from the
United States would constitute exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship.
●
●
– 12 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
88
Medina
Madrid
29 I&N Dec. 514
2026
BIA
4173
Where the respondent's removal
proceedings have been administratively
closed for over 13 years, continued
administrative closure is not warranted
based on the respondent's intention to apply
for a provisional unlawful presence waiver
with United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
● ILW.com
commentary.
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
87
Z-N-L-
29 I&N Dec. 511
2026
BIA
4172
The discrepancies in the record regarding
whether the respondent resides in
Oklahoma, where he was apprehended, or
California, as claimed in his application,
when considered as part of the totality of the
circumstances, demonstrate that the
respondent is a flight risk and does not
warrant release on bond. Matter of
Akhmedov, 29 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 2025),
followed.
●
● ILW.com
commentary.
● Practitioner
commentary.
86
Pinzon
Rozo
29 I&N Dec. 507
2026
BIA
4171
The Immigration Judge erred in granting the
respondent, who has an approved petition
for special immigrant juvenile classification,
a continuance to await the availability of a
visa, where the respondent's priority date will
not be current for an uncertain and lengthy
period of time.
●
● ILW.com
commentary.
– 13 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
85
R-B-E-
29 I&N Dec. 499
2026
BIA
4170
(1) If a respondent demonstrates past
persecution, there is a presumption of a
future threat to life or freedom on the basis
of the original claim, but this presumption
may be rebutted if there has been a
fundamental change in circumstance such
that the respondent’s life or freedom would
not be threatened on account of a protected
ground.
(2) Where a presumption of a future threat to
life or freedom applies, an Immigration
Judge cannot rely on generalized crime and
widespread violence unrelated to the original
claim to find the presumption has not been
rebutted, particularly where other evidence
suggests a fundamental change in
circumstances such that a respondent will no
longer be harmed on account of a protected
ground.
(3) The respondent’s conviction for
Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2) (2018)
constitutes a particularly serious crime
rendering her statutorily ineligible for
withholding of removal.
●
●
– 14 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
84
D-J-L-
29 I&N Dec. 485
2026
BIA
4168
Where an expert witness' background and
testimony reflect a reluctance to consider
contrary evidence and an inability to
impartially assess matters involving the
removal of persons to a given country, an
Immigration Judge errs in giving the
testimony of that witness significant weight.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
83
Ibarra-Vega
29 I&N Dec. 476
2026
BIA
4167
(1) When a U nonimmigrant visa is not
immediately available to a respondent and
the record does not establish that one is
likely to be available in the reasonably near
future, administrative closure over the
Department of Homeland Security’s
objection is inappropriate.
(2) The Board’s statement in Matter of B-N-
K-, 29 I&N Dec. 96, 99 (BIA 2025), that
administrative closure is only appropriate for
“a reasonably short period of time” applies in
the context of both the initial decision to
administratively close a case and the
decision to recalendar a case.
(3) The Board and Immigration Judges have
no authority to use administrative closure as
a de facto extra-statutory form of relief that
effectively grants amnesty to thousands of
removable aliens because they may be
eligible for a visa sometime in the future.
●
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
● Commentary by
ASISTA.
● Practitioner
commentary.
– 15 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
82
Forjoe
29 I&N Dec. 463
2026
BIA
4166
The phrase “at the time of admission” in
section 237(a)(1)(H) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(1)(H) (2024), refers to an alien’s
lawful entry into the United States after
inspection and authorization by an
immigration officer and thus fraud and
misrepresentations occurring at the time of
adjustment of status cannot be waived under
this provision. Matter of Agour, 26 I&N Dec.
566 (BIA 2015), overruled.
●
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
● Practitioner
commentary.
81
F-B-A-
29 I&N Dec. 456
2026
BIA
4165
(1) The unique barriers to reporting harm
faced by children do not apply to adults,
including adults who suffered harm as
children. Matter of C-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 740
(BIA 2023), clarified.
(2) Given the size of Russia, the
respondent's membership in the country's
majority religion, and the insufficient
evidence demonstrating her family maintains
an interest in locating her more than 2 years
after they last threatened her, the
Immigration Judge's finding that the
respondent could not reasonably relocate to
avoid persecution is clearly erroneous.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
● Practitioner
commentary.
– 16 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
80
L-S-C-R-
29 I&N Dec. 451
2026
BIA
4164
(1) A background check remand is limited to
the Immigration Judge's consideration of the
results of the background and security
checks and the issuance of an order on the
relief or protection that was the basis for the
remand. Matter of M-D-, 24 I&N Dec. 138
(BIA 2007), clarified.
(2) If a respondent seeks to apply for a new
or different form of relief, the respondent
must file a separate motion to reopen,
accompanied by the appropriate fee, with
the Immigration Court after the Immigration
Judge enters an order granting or denying
the relief that was the subject of the
background check remand.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
79
Jin
29 I&N Dec. 441
2026
BIA
4163
Based on the petitioner's extensive
allegations and evidence of marriage fraud
regarding the approved visa petition, the
record is returned to United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services to
further consider the visa petition and take
action as warranted in this matter.
●
● This appeal was
taken on
certification.
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
78
Yadav
29 I&N Dec. 438
2026
BIA
4162
A respondent's valid marriage to a United
States citizen entered into after a removal
order does not constitute an exceptional
situation warranting sua sponte reopening of
removal proceedings.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
– 17 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
77
G-M-I-
29 I&N Dec. 431
2026
BIA
4161
The relevance and the reliability of an expert
witness' opinions are significantly undercut
when those opinions are informed by
anecdotal or inaccurate facts or data.
●
●
76
E-A-S-O-
29 I&N Dec. 422
2026
BIA
4160
The Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 336 (BIA
2007), framework is the proper rubric for
determining whether a crime is particularly
serious and there is no presumption that a
single misdemeanor conviction is not for a
particularly serious crime. Matter of Juarez,
19 I&N Dec. 664 (BIA 1988), overruled.
●
●
75
Laurent
Castro
29 I&N Dec. 419
2026
BIA
(D)
4159
Where the respondent did not appear at a
hearing, was properly served with notice of
the missed hearing, and the Department of
Homeland Security provided evidence of the
respondent's removability, the Immigration
Judge erred in continuing removal
proceedings rather than entering an in
absentia removal order.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
● Practitioner
commentary.
74
S-M-H-
29 I&N Dec. 412
2026
BIA
4158
The written warnings on the respondent's
initial asylum application provided the
respondent with statutorily compliant notice
of the consequences of filing a frivolous
application, irrespective of the absence of
oral warnings by an Immigration Judge.
Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 322 (BIA
2010), clarified.
●
●
– 18 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
73
M-C-C-
29 I&N Dec. 401
2026
BIA
(D)
4157
(1) The respondent willfully misrepresented
a material fact by omitting reference to his
military service during the Bosnian War on
his refugee application because the
omission cut off a line of inquiry that
predictably would have disclosed facts
relevant to his eligibility for refugee status.
(2) The respondent did not warrant a
discretionary grant of a fraud waiver under
section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H)
(2024), based on his repeated and long-term
misrepresentations regarding his military
service during the Bosnian War and his lack
of remorse.
●
● ● There was a
dissenting opinion.
72
D-G-B-L-
29 I&N Dec. 392
2026
BIA
4156
The serious nonpolitical crime bar to asylum
and withholding of removal does not include
a duress exception.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
71
Laparra-
Deleon
29 I&N Dec. 389
2026
BIA
(D)
4155
Matter of Laparra, 28 I&N Dec. 425 (BIA
2022), which held that service of a statutorily
compliant notice of hearing is sufficient
written notice to support the entry of an in
absentia order of removal even if the
respondent was served with a noncompliant
notice to appear, is reinstated in the Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit and is good law
in any circuit without contrary precedent.
●
– 19 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
70
E-M-F-S-
29 I&N Dec. 379
2026
BIA
4154
Death threats alone rarely rise to the level of
persecution and only do so if they are
objectively credible and issued by a person
or persons with the immediate ability to carry
them out.
●
●
69
Ghanbari
29 I&N Dec. 376
2025
BIA
(D)
4153
The Immigration Judge erred in determining
that the respondent did not provide material
support to a terrorist organization and was
not subject to mandatory detention under
section 236(c)(1)(D) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1226(c)(1)(D)
(West 2025).
●
●
68
Tepec-
Garcia
29 I&N Dec. 371
2025
BIA
4152
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 respondent was
pro se.
● Practitioner
commentary.
67
L-T-A-
29 I&N Dec. 362
2025
BIA
4151
Evidence that a respondent had a legal right
to enter, live, work, and own property
indefinitely in the country of proposed
resettlement demonstrates that the
respondent was offered "some other type of
permanent resettlement" for purposes of the
firm resettlement bar.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
– 20 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
66
Rodriguez
Pena
29 I&N Dec. 358
2025
BIA
(D)
4150
The Immigration Judge erred in concluding
that the respondent is not a danger to the
community where the respondent threatened
to kill someone, reacted negatively to law
enforcement intervention, and used an alias
to evade arrest.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
65
Palma-
Olvera
29 I&N Dec. 355
2025
BIA
(D)
4149
The Immigration Judge erred in determining
that the respondent, who had two
convictions for driving while intoxicated, had
overcome the presumption that he lacked
good moral character based on his care for
his son and his history of employment.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
64
Lema
Mizhirumba
y
29 I&N Dec. 351
2025
BIA
(D)
4148
The respondent's repeated violations of
workplace safety regulations, resulting in the
death of two employees, are significant
adverse factors and weigh against a
favorable exercise of discretion for purposes
of cancellation of removal.
●
●
63
N-P-A-
29 I&N Dec. 347
2025
BIA
(D)
4147
The respondent did not establish a well-
founded fear of persecution based on a
pretextual summons for his political activity
and country conditions evidence that political
activists are detained and severely harmed
where a similar summons did not result in
harm to the respondent's son and the
respondent lived for years in Moldova
without harm.
●
●
– 21 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
62
L-A-G-B-
29 I&N Dec. 343
2025
BIA
(D)
4146
The Immigration Judge's predictive factual
findings based on a series of suppositions
regarding the harm the respondent would
likely suffer in Panama are clearly erroneous
and do not support a grant of protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
●
●
61
Kim
29 I&N Dec. 339
2025
BIA
(D)
4145
The Immigration Judge erred in determining
that the respondent, who engaged in
systemic criminal fraud for decades,
warranted a favorable exercise of discretion
for purposes of cancellation of removal
based on his recent expressed remorse and
rehabilitative efforts while in prison.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
60
Dubon
Miranda
29 I&N Dec. 335
2025
BIA
(D)
4144
Given the respondent's inappropriate and
concerning behavior with his stepdaughter,
his criminal convictions for driving under the
influence and disturbing the peace, and the
lack of information explaining the disturbing
the peace convictions, the respondent has
not satisfied his burden of demonstrating
that he is not a danger to the community.
●
●
59
J-C-A-G-
29 I&N Dec. 331
2025
BIA
(D)
4143
The applicant, who cooperated with United
States law enforcement against the cartel,
did not demonstrate a clear probability of
torture where his fear is based on
unsubstantiated statements from a
coconspirator and generalized evidence of
cartel violence.
●
●
– 22 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
58
Jimenez-
Ayala
29 I&N Dec. 325
2025
BIA
(D)
4142
The respondent's criminal history of drug
use and her exposure of her children to
drugs outweigh the favorable factors in this
case, including her claimed remorse and
intention to avoid drug use in the future, and
warrant a discretionary denial of cancellation
of removal.
●
●
57
W-F-
29 I&N Dec. 319
2025
BIA
(D)
4141
The Immigration Judge erred in granting the
respondent deferral of removal under the
Convention Against Torture where the
record contained anecdotal reports of bribery
in Haitian prisons and generalized violence
by gangs against travelers or outsiders.
●
●
56
B-S-H-
29 I&N Dec. 313
2025
BIA
4140
Under the plain language of section
240(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §
1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III) (2018), the
extraordinary circumstances or extreme
hardship waiver for motions to reopen only
applies to temporal limitations for filing a
motion to reopen to apply for relief under the
Violence Against Women Act and not to the
numerical limitation on such motions.
●
●
– 23 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
55
K-S-H-
29 I&N Dec. 307
2025
BIA
4139
A single attempt to report an incident of
harm by private actors to local police,
without further harm from the police
themselves or evidence of their widespread
collusion with the alleged persecutors, does
not establish that the government, as a
whole, is unable or unwilling to protect a
respondent from persecution.
● Distinguished by
Leon v. Bondi, 2026
WL 31161 (9th Cir.,
Feb. 5, 2026)
●
54
Cahuec
Tzalam
29 I&N Dec. 300
2025
BIA
4138
Given the respondent's failure to submit
evidence of his prima facie eligibility for
special immigrant juvenile classification and
the extended delay in the availability of a
visa, the Immigration Judge erred in granting
administrative closure.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
● Practitioner
commentary.
– 24 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
53
C-I-G-M- &
L-V-S-G-
29 I&N Dec. 291
2025
BIA
4137
(1) If the Department of Homeland Security
claims that an asylum cooperative
agreement bars a respondent from applying
for asylum in the United States, the
Immigration Judge should determine
whether the safe third country bar applies
prior to and separate from considering a
respondent’s eligibility for asylum.
(2) A respondent subject to the terms of an
asylum cooperative agreement has the
burden to establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that he or she will more likely
than not be persecuted on account of a
protected ground or tortured in the relevant
third country to avoid application of the safe
third country bar and for the respondent to
be eligible to seek asylum and other
protection claims in the United States.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
52
J-A-N-M-
29 I&N Dec. 287
2025
BIA
4136
Discretionary termination of an applicant's
withholding-only proceedings is prohibited by
8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(c)(3)(i) (2025).
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
● Practitioner
commentary.
51
Negusie
29 I&N Dec. 285
2025
AG
4135
The stay of the Board's March 16, 2021,
order in this matter is vacated, and Matter of
Negusie, 28 I. & N. Dec. 120 (A.G. 2020),
which held that the bar to asylum eligibility
for aliens who have engaged or assisted in
the persecution of another does not contain
a duress exception, is now the operative
opinion.
●
● IPTP entry #2028.
● Practitioner
commentary.
– 25 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
50
J-H-M-H-
29 I&N Dec. 278
2025
BIA
4134
In making findings of fact and conclusions of
law, Immigration Judges exercise
independent judgment and are not required
to accept party stipulations.
●
● Commentary by
AILA.
● Practitioner
commentary.
● Practitioner
commentary.
●
49
L-A-L-T-
29 I&N Dec. 269
2025
BIA
4133
(1) Perceived or imputed membership in a
proposed particular social group will only
satisfy the particular social group
requirements if the underlying group of
which the respondent is perceived to be a
member is, standing alone, sufficiently
cognizable.
(2) The respondent's proposed particular
social group, defined as "perceived
Salvadoran gang members," is not
cognizable within the meaning of the
Immigration and Nationality Act. Matter of E-
A-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2008),
reaffirmed.
●
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
48
Cotrufo
29 I&N Dec. 264
2025
BIA
(D)
4132
The respondent's recent convictions
involving unlawful sexual conduct with a
minor, combined with the probation officer's
report submitted for the purpose of
sentencing, show that the respondent is a
danger to the community.
●
– 26 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
47
Frias Ulloa
29 I&N Dec. 259
2025
BIA
(D)
4131
Section 2C:35-5(b)(4) of the New Jersey
Statutes Annotated is divisible by controlled
substance, and applying the modified
categorical approach, the respondent's
record of conviction identifies the relevant
substance as fentanyl, a federally controlled
substance. Matter of Laguerre, 28 I&N Dec.
437 (BIA 2022), followed.
●
●
46
J-A-
29 I&N Dec. 253
2025
BIA
(D)
4130
Evidence that the Uzbek Government is
pursuing charges of terrorist activity against
the respondent, that he will be detained
upon removal, and that there are isolated
incidents of torture does not establish that he
will more likely than not be tortured where
there is insufficient evidence that he will be
prosecuted for illegitimate reasons.
●
●
45
McDonald
29 I&N Dec. 249
2025
BIA
(D)
4129
The respondent's convictions for
endangering the welfare of a child, combined
with the respondent's conduct as described
in the charging document and the victim's
statement, demonstrate that the respondent
does not warrant a favorable exercise of
discretion.
●
●
– 27 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
44
Landers
29 I&N Dec. 240
2025
BIA
4128
Circumstantial evidence of similarities in
allegedly pro se filings and suspended
counsel's involvement in the mailing of
documents to the Immigration Courts and
DHS can constitute clear and convincing
evidence that counsel practiced law in
violation of a disciplinary order of
suspension.
●
● ● The respondent
was pro se.
43
H-A-A-V-
29 I&N Dec. 233
2025
BIA
4127
If the factual allegations underlying a claim
for asylum, withholding of removal, or
protection under the Convention Against
Torture, viewed in the light most favorable to
the respondent, do not establish prima facie
eligibility for relief or protection, an
Immigration Judge may pretermit the
applications without a full evidentiary hearing
on the merits of the claim.
●
● Commentary by
AILA.
● Practitioner
commentary.
42
Garcia-
Flores
29 I&N Dec. 230
2025
BIA
(D)
4126
In assessing whether the respondent
warranted a favorable exercise of discretion,
the Immigration Judge exceeded his
authority to consider the circumstances of
the respondent's conviction by making an
adverse credibility finding regarding the
respondent's two child victims and in effect
finding the respondent factually innocent of
the crime.
●
The respondent was
pro se.
– 28 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
41
Yajure
Hurtado
29 I&N Dec. 216
2025
BIA
4125
Based on the plain language of section
235(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)
(2018), Immigration Judges lack authority to
hear bond requests or to grant bond to
aliens who are present in the United States
without admission.
● Abrogated by
Bautista v.
Santacruz, 813
F.Supp.3d 1084
(C.D.Cal. 2025)
● IPTP entry #1855.
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
● Commentary by
AIC.
● Practitioner
commentary.
● Practitioner
commentary.
40
Dobrotvors
kii
29 I&N Dec. 211
2025
BIA
4124
(1) In bond proceedings, the existence of a
valid, reliable, and credible sponsor is
relevant to the determination of flight risk.
(2) Immigration Judges may take into
consideration all relevant and probative
evidence, regardless of which party filed it,
to determine if the evidence establishes
custody factors.
●
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
39
S-S-F-M-
(decision)
29 I&N Dec. 207
2025
AG
4123
Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021)
is overruled, and immigration judges and the
Board shall adhere to Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N
Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), and Matter of A-B-, 28
I&N Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021), in all pending or
future cases. By extension, Matter of A-R-C-
G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), and any
decision issued in reliance thereupon is also
overruled.
●
● IPTP entry #1948.
● Commentary by
Tahirih.
38
S-S-F-M-
(referral)
29 I&N Dec. 206
2025
AG
4122
The Attorney General referred the decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals to
herself for review of its decision.
●
● Commentary by
NIJC.
– 29 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
37
R-E-R-M- &
J-D-R-M-
(decision)
29 I&N Dec. 202
2025
AG
4121
Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G.
2021), is overruled, and immigration judges
and the Board should adhere to the holding
of Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G.
2019), in all pending and future claims.
●
● IPTP entry #1949.
● Commentary by
NIJC.
36
R-E-R-M- &
J-D-R-M-
(referral)
29 I&N Dec. 201
2025
AG
4120
The Attorney General referred the decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals to
herself for review of its decision.
●
●
35
J-A-F-S-
29 I&N Dec. 195
2025
BIA
4119
An Immigration Judge generally should not
continue an individual hearing based on a
respondent's speculative assertion that he or
she may be eligible for a new form of relief
from removal not previously raised.
●
● Practitioner
commentary
34
O-Y-A-E-
29 I&N Dec. 190
2025
BIA
(D)
4118
Evidence of human rights abuses in
Venezuela and past threats to the
respondent do not establish an
individualized risk of torture where the last
threat occurred years before the respondent
left the country and the respondent was
otherwise unharmed following the threats.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
– 30 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
33
Buri Mora
29 I&N Dec. 186
2025
BIA
(D)
4117
The respondent has not established the
requisite exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to the qualifying relatives based on
economic detriment and family separation,
particularly where the qualifying relatives will
remain in the United States and treatment
for their mental health conditions and
developmental delays will not be affected by
the respondent's removal.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
● Practitioner
commentary.
32
G-C-I-
29 I&N Dec. 176
2025
BIA
4116
(1) A respondent's nonresponsive and
evasive testimony, including when related to
the issue of corroboration, supports an
adverse credibility determination.
(2) A lack of corroboration may be an
independent basis to find that a respondent
has not met his burden of proof to establish
a claim for asylum or withholding of removal.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
31
Salas Pena
29 I&N Dec. 173
2025
BIA
(D)
4115
The respondent's recent arrest for trafficking
in a large quantity of cocaine demonstrates
that he is a danger to the community and
does not warrant release on bond.
●
●
30
Garcia
Martinez
29 I&N Dec. 169
2025
BIA
4114
(1) A non-detained alien who is represented
by private counsel is presumed to have the
ability to pay any requisite filing fee before
the Immigration Judge and the Board.
(2) A fee waiver request from a non-detained
adult alien that contains zeros in all income
blocks is presumptively invalid.
●
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
– 31 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
29
Akhmedov
29 I&N Dec. 166
2025
BIA
(D)
4113
Significant discrepancies regarding whether
the respondent lives in New York or
Michigan and his past failure to file timely
change of address notices with the
Immigration Court, when considered in the
totality of the circumstances, demonstrate
that the respondent is a flight risk and does
not warrant release on bond.
● Called into doubt by
Rodriguez v.
Bostock, 802
F.Supp.3d 1297
(W.D. Wash. 2025)
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
● Practitioner
commentary.
28
Felix-
Figueroa
29 I&N Dec. 157
2025
BIA
4112
(1) An Immigration Judge must apply the
realistic probability test whenever a party
asserts that a State's statutory definition of a
controlled substance is broader than the
Federal definition of a controlled substance
based on a textual mismatch regarding the
isomers of a particular controlled substance.
(2) Once DHS establishes the existence of a
State drug conviction by clear and
convincing evidence, a respondent who
argues that a State conviction is
categorically overbroad based on differing
substance or isomer definitions has the
burden of demonstrating a realistic
probability that the State prosecutes
substances falling outside the Federal
definition of a controlled substance.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
● Practitioner
commentary.
27
K-E-S-G-
29 I&N Dec. 145
2025
BIA
4111
A particular social group defined by the
alien's sex or sex and nationality, standing
alone, is overbroad and insufficiently
particular to be cognizable.
●
● Commentary by
AIC.
● Practitioner
commentary.
– 32 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
26
C-M-M-
29 I&N Dec. 141
2025
BIA
(D)
4110
The applicant's extensive and lengthy history
of immigration law violations, including
multiple removals and illegal reentries,
demonstrates that she poses a significant
flight risk, such that no monetary bond would
be sufficient to ensure her appearance at
future immigration hearings and, if
necessary, her surrender for removal from
this country.
●
●
25
S-S-
29 I&N Dec. 136
2025
BIA
(D)
4109
The Immigration Judge erred in concluding
that the respondent would more likely than
not be tortured in detention in Haiti where
the Immigration Judge did not find that his
detention would be long term and where the
record did not establish that the harsh
conditions in Haitian detention were
specifically intended to torture.
●
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
● Practitioner
commentary.
24
Gonzalez
Jimenez
29 I&N Dec. 129
2025
BIA
4108
(1) Use of false or stolen Social Security
numbers and providing false information on
tax returns are negative considerations that
weigh against a favorable exercise of
discretion.
(2) When a respondent seeks to excuse
conduct by claiming to have relied on
professional advice, the respondent should
submit evidence of the specific advice given
and explain why it was reasonable to rely on
such advice.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
– 33 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
23
E-Z-
29 I&N Dec. 123
2025
BIA
(D)
4107
The Immigration Judge's predictive findings
regarding the harm the respondent will suffer
in Russia based on his travel to the United
States and his support for Ukraine were
speculative, and thus the Immigration Judge
erred in granting the respondent's
application for protection under the
regulations implementing the Convention
Against Torture.
●
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
22
A-A-F-V-
29 I&N Dec. 118
2025
BIA
(D)
4106
The applicant, a bisexual criminal deportee
with visible gang tattoos, has not established
an individualized risk of torture in detention
in El Salvador.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
21
C-I-R-H- &
H-S-V-R-
29 I&N Dec. 114
2025
BIA
(D)
4105
While explicit statements from the
persecutors regarding the protected ground
are not required to establish nexus, there
must be some showing of a connection
between the persecutors' actions and the
protected ground beyond speculation such
that the alleged harm is not solely stemming
from statistical likelihoods or unfortunate
coincidence.
●
●
20
Mayorga
Ipina
29 I&N Dec. 110
2025
BIA
4104
The respondent's conviction for indecent
exposure in violation of section 18.2-387 of
the Virginia Code is for a crime involving
moral turpitude because the requirement of
an "obscene display or exposure"
necessarily involves a lewd intent. Matter of
Cortes Medina, 26 I&N Dec. 79 (BIA 2013),
reaffirmed.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
– 34 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
19
Roque-
Izada
29 I&N Dec. 106
2025
BIA
4103
Termination of removal proceedings is not
warranted to permit a respondent to seek
adjustment of status under the Cuban
Refugee Adjustment Act of November 2,
1966, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161, as
amended, before United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) based
on speculation that USCIS will grant the
respondent parole under section
212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)
(2018).
●
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
● Practitioner
commentary.
18
E-Y-F-G-
29 I&N Dec. 103
2025
BIA
(D)
4102
A grant of withholding of removal that is
pending on appeal does not justify release
on bond where the factors regarding flight
risk weigh strongly against release on bond.
●
●
17
B-N-K-
29 I&N Dec. 96
2025
BIA
4101
(1) Because Immigration Judges and the
Board have a duty to promptly and fairly
bring removal proceedings to a close,
whether there are persuasive reasons for a
case to proceed and be resolved on the
merits is the primary consideration in
determining whether administrative closure
is appropriate under the totality of the
circumstances. Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N
Dec. 17 (BIA 2017), reaffirmed.
(2) A pending application for Temporary
Protected Status generally will not warrant a
grant of administrative closure.
●
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
– 35 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
16
Lopez-
Ticas
29 I&N Dec. 90
2025
BIA
4100
The lack of time and place information on
the notice to appear does not render untrue
or incorrect a respondent's admission to the
factual allegations or invalidate the charges
of removability in the notice to appear and
therefore is not a proper basis for granting a
respondent's motion to withdraw pleadings.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
15
D-E-B-
29 I&N Dec. 83
2025
BIA
(D)
4099
A supplemental filing to a motion to reopen
that raises claims that are fundamentally
different from those raised in the original
motion is treated as a separate motion.
●
●
14
N-N-B-
29 I&N Dec. 79
2025
BIA
(D)
4098
The Immigration Judge applied the wrong
legal standard for protection under the
regulations implementing the Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec.
10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465
U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into force for United
States Nov. 20, 1994), determining the
respondent “could be” subject to torture
instead of that he would “more likely than
not” be tortured.
●
●
13
Beltrand-
Rodriguez
29 I&N Dec. 76
2025
BIA
(D)
4097
The respondent's release on bond would
pose a danger to the community based on
his dangerous behavior that subjected a
person who was particularly vulnerable
because of her age and her familial
relationship to the respondent to unlawful
sexual conduct.
●
●
– 36 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
12
Bain
29 I&N Dec. 72
2025
BIA
(D)
4096
Considering the recency and repeated
nature of the respondent's criminal history
and the lack of a showing of rehabilitation,
we conclude, upon consideration of the
totality of the record and a balancing of the
factors present in this case, that he has not
established that he warrants cancellation of
removal as a matter of discretion.
●
● The respondent was
pro se.
● Practitioner
commentary.
● Practitioner
commentary.
11
Q. Li
29 I&N Dec. 66
2025
BIA
4095
(1) An applicant for admission who is
arrested and detained without a warrant
while arriving in the United States, whether
or not at a port of entry, and subsequently
placed in removal proceedings is detained
under section 235(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)
(2018), and is ineligible for any subsequent
release on bond under section 236(a) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (2018).
(2) An alien detained under section 235(b) of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), who is released
from detention pursuant to a grant of parole
under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) (2018), and whose
grant of parole is subsequently terminated, is
returned to custody under section 235(b)
pending the completion of removal
proceedings.
● Disagreed with by
Hyppolite v. Noem,
808 F.Supp.3d 474
(E.D.N.Y. 2025)
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
● Practitioner
commentary.
– 37 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
10
M-S-I-
29 I&N Dec. 61
2025
BIA
(D)
4094
The acquiescence standard for protection
under the regulations implementing the
Convention Against Torture 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.
●
●
9
F-B-G-M- &
J-E-M-G-
29 I&N Dec. 52
2025
BIA
(D)
4093
(1) Electronic notification of a briefing
schedule sent to the email address of record
is sufficient notice in a case eligible for
electronic filing, regardless of whether an
alien's attorney or accredited representative
opens the email or accesses the document
via the Executive Office for Immigration
Review's Courts and Appeals ("ECAS")
Case Portal.
(2) A rebuttable presumption of delivery
applies when a party has been sent
electronic notification of a briefing schedule
through the procedures provided for in the
ECAS regulations, but this presumption is
weaker than the presumption that applies to
documents sent by certified mail because
electronic service through ECAS does not
involve the use of a signed receipt or other
affirmative evidence of delivery.
●
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
– 38 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
8
Choc-Tut
29 I&N Dec. 48
2025
BIA
(D)
4092
While an Immigration Judge may consider a
State court's decision as to dangerousness
and the amount of bail that was set in
criminal proceedings, an Immigration Judge
does not owe a State court custody order
deference in immigration bond proceedings.
●
●
7
A-A-R-
29 I&N Dec. 38
(amended)
2025
BIA
4091
Based on the facts and evidence in this
case, the applicant, a former MS-13 gang
member, has not met his burden to show he
will more likely than not be tortured in El
Salvador based on the government's state of
exception policy.
●
● Commentary by
CLINIC twice.
● Practitioner
commentary.
6
O-A-R-G-
29 I&N Dec. 30
2025
BIA
4090
(1) 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.
(2) Acquiescence in the context of protection
under the Convention Against Torture
requires a greater degree of governmental
complicity than is required to establish a
government is unable or unwilling to protect
a respondent in the asylum context.
●
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
– 39 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
5
Iskandarani
29 I&N Dec. 26
2025
BIA
4089
When an Immigration Judge issues an oral
decision, the 30-day appeal filing period is
calculated from the date the decision is
rendered and is unaffected by the
subsequent mailing of a memorandum
summarizing the oral decision.
●
●
4
Dor
29 I&N Dec. 20
2025
BIA
4088
The time of conviction is the relevant point
for determining whether a respondent's
State conviction is for a controlled substance
offense under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (2018), not the time the
respondent's removability is adjudicated in
immigration proceedings.
●
●
3
C-A-R-R-
29 I&N Dec. 13
2025
BIA
4087
(1) An Immigration Judge is not required to
consider an Application for Asylum and for
Withholding of Removal (Form I-589) on the
merits if it is incomplete, and incomplete
applications may be considered waived or
abandoned, particularly where an
opportunity to cure has been offered.
(2) Because declarations are not a
constituent part of an asylum application, a
Form I-589 is not incomplete, and an
Immigration Judge may not deem it
abandoned, solely because the respondent
did not submit a declaration. Matter of
Interiano-Rosa, 25 I&N Dec. 264 (BIA 2010),
reaffirmed.
●
● Commentary by
CLINIC.
● Commentary by
NILP.
● Commentary from
Human Rights First.
● Practitioner
commentary.
– 40 —
#
Case
Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial Decisions
Notes / Commentary
2
De Jesus
Platon
29 I&N Dec. 7
2025
BIA
(D)
4086
The evidence of post-conviction relief under
section 1473.7 of the California Penal Code
that the respondent submitted in support of
his motion to remand does not demonstrate
that his conviction was vacated for a
procedural or substantive defect in the
underlying criminal proceedings and not for
reasons of rehabilitation or immigration
hardship.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
1
Baeza-
Galindo
29 I&N Dec. 1
2025
BIA
4085
(1) Proximity in time is necessary but not
sufficient to conclude that two crimes arise
from a single scheme of criminal misconduct
under section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) (2018). Matter of Adetiba,
20 I&N Dec. 506, 509 (BIA 1992), clarified.
(2) Two crimes involving moral turpitude,
premised on separate turpitudinous acts with
different objectives, neither of which was
committed in the course of accomplishing
the other, constitute separate schemes of
criminal misconduct.
●
● Practitioner
commentary.
© 2026
– 41 —
AG & BIA Precedent Decision Summary Statistics
# of decisions
% of decisions
66
56.9%
45
38.8%
5
4.3%
116
100.0%
* Two AG opinions were procedural referrals (i.e., the AG directing the BIA to refer the
case to the AG).
# of decisions
% of decisions
0
0.0%
1
0.1%
# of decisions
% of decisions
23
20.0%
92
80.0%
115*
100.0%
* One “pro se” case was excluded from this table because it involves a self-representing
attorney in disciplinary proceedings.
© 2026 Immigration Policy Tracking Project