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
CA6 Holds That Petition-for-Review Deadline Is Subject to Equitable Tolling but Dismisses Petition as Untimely
The court held that the 30-day deadline to file a petition for review under INA §242(b)(1) is subject to equitable tolling, but found that the petitioner was not entitled to tolling on the record and thus dismissed the petition as untimely. (Oxlaj-Perez v. Blanche, 4/29/26)
CA7 Holds That Failure to Appear Was Not Due to Exceptional Circumstances Where Petitioner Failed to Notify the Court
The court held that the petitioner did not establish exceptional circumstances under INA §240(b)(5)(C), where his failure to appear resulted from financial hardship and transportation difficulties rather than exceptional circumstances beyond his control. (Nimaga v. Blanche, 4/29/26)
AILA Law Journal, Vol. 8, Number 1, April 2026
The April 2026 edition of the AILA Law Journal is now available.
Practice Alert: AILA Tracking Detentions at USCIS Biometrics Appointments
AILA is tracking increased reports of detentions at USCIS biometrics appointments.
BIA Holds That FBI Memorandum Indicating Respondent Is National Security Risk Warrants Significant Weight in Bond Proceedings
The BIA held that an FBI Letterhead Memorandum indicating that the respondent is a potential national security risk warrants significant weight in bond proceedings, and ordered the respondent detained without bond. Matter of Shentu, 29 I&N Dec. 595 (BIA 2026)
BIA Holds That IJ Erred in Terminating Proceedings Based Solely on DACA Receipt Without Considering Opposition to Termination
The BIA held that the IJ erred in terminating removal proceedings based solely on the fact that respondent had been accorded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and without considering reasons for any opposition to termination. Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026)
CA1 Holds That There Is No Categorical Bar to Political Opinion Claims Based on Opposition to Gangs
Granting the petition for review and remanding, the court held that the BIA erred in applying a categorical rule that opposition to gangs cannot constitute a political opinion and failed to adequately address the petitioner’s religion-based asylum claim. (Lopez Martinez v. Blanche, 4/23/26)
BIA Holds That Political Opinion Must Be Tied to Government and That Opposition to Gangs Is Insufficient
The BIA held that to establish a political opinion under the INA, a noncitizen must have an actual or imputed belief or conviction regarding a discrete cause tied to a government, and that opposition to criminal gangs is insufficient. Matter of D–G–E–A– & N–G–G–E–, 29 I&N Dec. 570 (BIA 2026)
CA4 Holds Matter of K– Does Not Apply Where Petitioner Admits Drug Offenses in Seeking Cancellation of Removal
The court held that Matter of K– does not apply where a petitioner, represented by counsel, admits to controlled substance offenses under oath in seeking cancellation of removal, and that such admissions preclude a finding of good moral character. (Sandoval Diaz v. Blanche, 4/20/26)
AILA and NIJC Argue Immigration Judges Must Develop the Record
AILA and the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) filed an amici brief outlining immigration judges’ affirmative duty to develop the record in removal proceedings and how this duty applies to pro se respondents and cases where counsel’s performance falls below minimum professional standards.
CA1 Reverses Denial of Adjustment to Venezuelan Petitioner Where BIA Engaged in Impermissible Factfinding
The court reversed and remanded, holding that the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding by relying on a factual determination not supported by the record in reversing the IJ’s grant of adjustment of status to the Venezuelan petitioner. (Taveras Martínez v. Blanche, 4/17/26)
CA4 Holds That North Carolina PJC with Community Service Constituted Conviction under INA §101(a)(48)(A)
The court held that the petitioner’s North Carolina Prayer for Judgment Continued (PJC) conditioned on community service constituted a conviction under INA §101(a)(48)(A) rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal based on two CIMT convictions. (Gardner v. Blanche, 4/14/26)
CA7 Finds That Petitioner Failed to Show Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship and That BIA Did Not Abuse Discretion in Denying Reopening
The court held that the petitioner failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(1) and found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. (Petrov v. Blanche, 4/14/26)
BIA Holds IJs Must Conduct In Absentia Hearing Where Record Contains Evidence of Alienage Despite DHS Nonappearance
The BIA held that where respondent is charged as present without admission or parole, neither party appears, and the record contains evidence of alienage, the IJ errs in terminating proceedings instead of conducting an in absentia hearing. Matter of Bolivar-Bolivar, 29 I&N Dec. 548 (BIA 2026)
EOIR to Stop Hearings at San Francisco Immigration Court’s Montgomery Street Location
EOIR announced it will stop holding hearings at the San Francisco Immigration Court’s Montgomery Street location after 5/1/26. Some cases will be reassigned to the court’s Sansome Street location, and filings for such cases should be filed at the Sansome Street location beginning 5/4/26.
AILA Files Amicus Brief in CA9 Defending Right to Counsel in Reasonable Fear Proceedings
AILA argued that meaningful access to counsel is essential in reasonable fear proceedings. Despite requesting counsel, the detained petitioner was forced to proceed pro se at the RF interview and IJ review, undermining statutory and due process protections. (Amador-Canacas v. Bondi, 4/9/26)
BIA Holds That Secretary of State Letter Was Sufficient to Establish Removability for Adverse Foreign Policy Consequences
The BIA held that a Secretary of State letter was sufficient to establish removability under INA §237(a)(4)(C)(i), and that failure to disclose involvement with an organization on a Form I-485 was a material misrepresentation supporting removability. Matter of M–K–, 29 I&N Dec. 556 (BIA 2026)
AILA and Public Counsel Urge Right to Counsel in Reasonable Fear Interview
The petitioner was forced to proceed in reasonable fear interview and immigration judge review without counsel, despite asking to contact his attorney. AILA and Public Counsel stress the critical role of counsel and the high stakes for pro se detainees. (Amador Canacas v. Bondi, 4/9/26)
AILA and the Council File Public Comment in Opposition to New BIA Interim Final Rule
AILA and the American Immigration Council urge DOJ/EOIR to withdraw the BIA Appellate Procedures IFR, arguing it unlawfully cuts appeal time to 10 days, makes summary dismissal the default without a complete record, burdens counsel, and shifts errors and caseloads to federal courts.
EOIR Announces 15 Immigration Judges and 17 Temporary Immigration Judges
EOIR announced the investiture of 15 immigration judges and 17 temporary immigration judges in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.
CA9 Finds Petitioner Forfeited Merits Arguments and Failed to Exhaust Due Process Claims
The court denied the petition for review, holding that the petitioner had forfeited all exhausted bases to challenge the agency’s decision denying his asylum application and failed to exhaust the procedural due process claims he raised before the court. (Santana-Gonzalez v. Bondi, 4/8/26)
CA6 Upholds Asylum Denial Where Petitioner Forfeited and Failed to Exhaust PSG Claims
The court held that the petitioner forfeited his arguments regarding the four particular social groups (PSGs) he identified before the agency and that he failed to exhaust the three new groups he presented for the first time in his petition for review. (Gamas-Vicente v. Blanche, 4/7/26)
CA7 Finds It Lacked Jurisdiction to Review Petition for Review Where No Final Order of Removal Existed
The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that an email from a DHS field office declining to revisit a long-executed 2018 Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) was not a “final order of removal” reviewable under INA §242(a). (Velazquez-Olais v. Blanche, 4/6/26)
BIA Holds That Lay Testimony Is Generally Insufficient for Hardship Where Medical Evidence Is Reasonably Available
The BIA held that lay testimony alone is generally insufficient to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(1)(D) where expert medical evidence could reasonably have been produced. Matter of Pelagio Mendoza, 29 I&N Dec. 542 (BIA 2026)
BIA Reaffirms That Obstruction of Justice Offenses Require Specific Intent and Finds California Accessory Conviction Is an Aggravated Felony
The BIA reaffirmed that an obstruction of justice offense requires specific intent to interfere with the process of law, and held that a California accessory to a felony conviction categorically qualifies as an aggravated felony. Matter of Valenzuela Gallardo, 29 I&N Dec. 536 (BIA 2026)