Skip to main content

Immigration Policy Tracking Project

Open main menu
– 1 —
BIA and AG Precedents Since January 2025
(Last revised: May 31, 2026)
This table lists every published immigration decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Attorney General (AG) since January 20, 2025.
The list is current as of the date of the most recent listed decision. Judicial decisions and commentary may be added as they become available.
Notes:
Issuer. Some BIA decisions are noted as “designated” for publication by the Attorney General. These 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 or relief discussed by the ruling.
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 an endorsement of the commentary or its author.
Some additional information may be found on a chart prepared by the National Immigration Project.
Some statistical summaries of the listed decisions appear at the end of the table.
This table does not include any matters published in I&N Decisions that are not BIA or AG opinions.
– 2 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / Commentary
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.
●
●
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.
– 3 —
#
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.
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.
– 4 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / 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.
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.
– 5 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / 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.
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.
– 6 —
#
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.
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.
– 7 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / 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.
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
– 8 —
#
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.
●
●
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.
– 9 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / Commentary
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.
– 10 —
#
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.
●
●
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.
– 11 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / 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.
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.
– 12 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / 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.
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.
– 13 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / Commentary
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.
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.
●
●
– 14 —
#
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.
●
●
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.
●
●
– 15 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / Commentary
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.
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.
– 16 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / Commentary
64
Lema
Mizhirumbay
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.
●
●
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.
●
●
– 17 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / Commentary
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.
●
●
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.
●
●
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)
●
– 18 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / Commentary
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.
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.
– 19 —
#
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.
●
●
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.
●
●
– 20 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / Commentary
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.
●
●
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.
– 21 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / 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.
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
Dobrotvorskii
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.
– 22 —
#
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.
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.
– 23 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / 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.
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.
– 24 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / 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.
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.
– 25 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / 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.
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.
●
●
– 26 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / Commentary
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.
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.
– 27 —
#
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.
●
●
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.
– 28 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / 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.
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.
●
●
– 29 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / Commentary
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.
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.
– 30 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / 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.
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.
●
●
– 31 —
#
Case Name
Citation
Year
Issuer
I.D. #
BIA Headnotes
Judicial
Decisions
Notes / Commentary
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 NIP.
● Commentary from Human
Rights First.
● Practitioner 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
– 32 —
BIA & AG Precedent Decision Statistics
ISSUER
# of decisions
% of decisions
BIA
65
57.0%
BIA (D)
44
38.6%
AG
5
4.4%
Total
114
100.0%
BIA DETAILS
# of decisions
% of decisions
Decided en banc
0
0.0%
Dissenting opinion
1
0.1%
REPRESENTATION
# of decisions
% of decisions
Pro se
23
20.4%
Represented
90
79.6%
Total
113*
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