Featured Issue: U.S. Immigration Courts under Trump 2.0
The U.S. immigration court system plays a critical role in upholding due process and ensuring fair hearings for individuals facing deportation. However, since January 20, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has implemented significant changes that challenge the structural integrity of these courts. This page aims to provide up-to-date information on the policy and legal shifts affecting the U.S. immigration court system.
Latest Updates
Updates from EOIR
Browse the Featured Issue: U.S. Immigration Courts under Trump 2.0 collection
CA1 Upholds Asylum Denial as to Guatemalan Petitioners Who Were Targeted for Extortion
The court held that substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum and related relief, finding that the Guatemalan petitioners were targeted for criminal extortion rather than a protected ground and could reasonably relocate within Guatemala. (Ramos-Hernandez, et al. v. Bondi, 12/22/25)
CA5 Holds Texas Indecency with a Child Conviction Was Categorically a Crime of Child Abuse
The court held that the petitioner’s Texas conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact was categorically a “crime of child abuse” under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i), and found that statutory authentication methods for conviction records are not exclusive. (Campuzano v. Bondi, 12/22/25)
CA9 Upholds Asylum Denial After Finding Nicaraguan Petitioner’s Childhood Trauma Did Not Excuse Untimely Filing
The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s extraordinary circumstances determination, but found that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that childhood trauma did not excuse the petitioner’s 13-year delay in filing for asylum. (Ruiz v. Bondi, 12/22/25)
CA4 Finds BIA Abused Its Discretion by Ignoring Evidence That Honduras Was Unable or Unwilling to Control MS-13
The court held that the BIA abused its discretion when it ignored credible, unrebutted, and legally significant evidence in the record and concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to control MS-13. (Ramos Marquez v. Bondi, 11/19/25)
BIA Finds IJ Did Not Err in Terminating Proceedings Without Prejudice Where DHS Did Not Appear or Present Evidence of Removability
The BIA held that where neither the respondent nor DHS appears at the hearing and DHS does not present evidence of removability in advance of the hearing, the IJ does not err in terminating proceedings without prejudice. Matter of Tepec-Garcia, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 371 (BIA 2025)
EOIR Announces New Appellate Immigration Judge
EOIR announced the investiture of Appellate Immigration Judge Roman Marian Chaban who was sworn in on 12/19/25. Judge Chaban previously served as EOIR Acting Deputy Director.
BIA Finds Firm Resettlement Bar Applied Where Nepalese Respondent Had Indefinite Rights to Live and Work in India
The BIA held that 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.” Matter of L–T–A–, 29 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 2025)
CA5 Grants Government’s Motion to Summarily Deny Petition for Review as Untimely under INA §242(b)(1)
The court held that the petition was untimely under INA §242(b)(1), that the 30-day filing deadline is a mandatory claim-processing rule, that the government did not waive its timeliness objection, and that the prison mailbox rule did not render the petition timely. (Liao v. Bondi, 12/17/25)
CA6 Finds Petitioner Failed to Exhaust Challenge to Numerical Bar on Second Motion to Reopen
The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust her challenge to the IJ’s determination that her second motion to reopen was numerically barred, and found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte. (Herrera v. Bondi, 12/15/25)
CA6 Upholds Asylum and Withholding Denial as to Honduran Petitioner Who Was Targeted by MS-13
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the petitioner’s untimely asylum application and dismissed his withholding of removal claim, finding that he failed to exhaust the issue of government protection from gang violence. (Osabas-Rivera v. Bondi, 12/8/25)
CA1 Upholds Asylum Denial as to Peruvian Survivor of Domestic Violence Based on Lack of Nexus and Speculative Future Harm
The court held that substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief as to the petitioner, a Peruvian survivor of domestic violence, finding there was no nexus to a protected ground and a speculative fear of future torture. (De La Cruz-Quispe v. Bondi, 12/5/25)
CA5 Holds That Petitioner’s New Mexico Child Abuse Conviction Was a “Crime of Child Abuse” under the INA
The court held that the petitioner’s New Mexico child abuse conviction was categorically a “crime of child abuse” under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i), and that his state conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon was an aggravated felony under the INA. (Silva de Santiago v. Bondi, 12/4/25)
Featured Issue: U.S. Immigration Courts under Trump 2.0
The U.S. immigration court system plays a critical role in ensuring due process and fair hearings for people facing deportation. But the Trump Administration has made significant changes that challenge the integrity of these courts. On this page, you will find news and resources on these changes.
CA9 Denies Motion to Stay Removal Where Petitioners Failed to Show Likelihood of Success or Irreparable Harm
The court denied the petitioners’ motion for a stay of removal pending disposition of their petition for review, finding they failed to show a likelihood of success on their asylum and related claims or particularized irreparable harm. (Rojas-Espinoza v. Bondi, 10/24/25, amended 11/25/25)
AILA Endorses The Temporary Immigration Judge Integrity Act
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Rep. Juan Vargas (CA-52) introduced the Temporary Immigration Judge Integrity Act. This proposed bill would ensure temporary immigration judges have essential expertise in immigration law to enhance the fairness and accuracy of adjudications. AILA endorses this bill.
CA6 Finds BIA Abused Its Discretion in Rejecting Petitioners’ Brief Based on Address Discrepancy and Summarily Dismissing Appeal
The court held that the BIA abused its discretion by rejecting petitioners’ brief because it listed an address for their attorney that was different from the address on the attorney’s notice of appearance and then summarily dismissing their appeal. (Pineda-Guerra, et al. v. Bondi, 12/3/25)
Call for Examples: Harmful Impacts of Expedited Removal on Paroled Individuals in Support of Amicus Brief
AILA’s Amicus Committee is preparing a “stories” amicus brief to illustrate the real-world human and systemic harms caused by the government’s unlawful application of expedited removal to paroled individuals—from the perspective of immigration attorneys and their clients.
CA1 Adopts Time-of-Conviction Rule for Controlled Substance Removability
Denying the petition for review, the court held that the relevant Controlled Substances Act (CSA) definition for determining removability under INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i) is the one in effect at the time of the noncitizen’s conviction, not at the time of removal proceedings. (Dor v. Bondi, 12/1/25)
CA6 Upholds Asylum Denial as to Single Salvadoran Female Salon Owner
The court held that substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum and other relief, finding that petitioner’s proposed PSGs were not cognizable, that internal relocation was reasonable, and that she failed to show a likelihood of torture. (Cristales-de Linares, et al. v. Bondi, 12/1/25)
CA9 Upholds Denial of Asylum as to Sikh Mann Party Member from India
The court held that threats from masked men, two brief beatings, and a short detention of the Sikh Mann party member petitioner did not rise to the level of past persecution, and found that he could avoid future persecution by relocating within India. (Singh v. Bondi, 12/1/25)
CA1 Upholds BIA’s Finding That Colombian Government Was Able to Protect Bakery Owner from Gang Threats
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that the Colombian government was able to protect petitioner and his family from gang threats, and thus found he failed to show the required nexus for his asylum or withholding claims. (Restrepo Castano v. Bondi, 11/26/25)
CA5 Denies Stay of Removal, Noting That Equitable Relief Is Not a Right
The court issued a published an order denying the petitioner’s request for a stay of removal, emphasizing that equitable relief, even if it is temporary or short, is never a matter of right or convenience. (Labrador Gutierrez v. Bondi, 11/26/25)
CA2 Finds Agency Failed to Address Whether Guatemalan Government Would Acquiesce to Petitioner’s Torture by a Private Actor
The court held that the BIA and IJ failed to properly assess whether the Guatemalan government would acquiesce to petitioner being tortured in prison by private parties who would target him if he returned to Guatemala, and thus remanded his claim for CAT relief. (B.G.S. v. Bondi, 11/24/25)
DOJ 30-Day Notice of Revision and Extension of Forms EOIR-42A and EOIR-42B
DOJ notice of revision and extension of Form EOIR-42A, Application for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents and Form EOIR-42B, Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents. Comments are due 12/22/25. (90 FR 52708, 11/22/25)
CA6 Holds That Age of Qualifying “Child” under INA §240A(b)(1)(D) Is Ascertained When IJ Renders Its Decision
The court reversed BIA’s order finding petitioner no longer qualified as a “child” under the INA because she was over 21 at the time of the BIA’s decision, holding that age for cancellation under §240A(b)(1)(D) is determined when the IJ issues its decision. (Perez-Perez v. Bondi, 11/21/25)