Volume 30

An Immigration Judge may pretermit an application for asylum and withholding of removal without the filing of a motion by the Department of Homeland Security.

The respondent did not meet his burden to establish that he is not a flight risk where he engaged in asylum fraud and where the Immigration Judge denied his application for asylum.

Reopening is unwarranted because the respondent’s claim of a lack of due process is speculative, based on a series of false assumptions and fallacious reasoning, and wholly unsupported by the actual evidence in the record.

The Immigration Judge erred in finding exceptional circumstances warranting sua sponte reopening and rescission of an in absentia removal order where the record did not support the respondent’s claim that an individual misled him into believing he did not need to appear in Immigration Court.

(1) The respondent’s admission to possessing and using cocaine makes him inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (2024), and hence ineligible for adjustment of status.

(2) Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), does not require that the alien be informed of the precise statutory definition with the essential elements of the offense in question prior to making an admission. Matter of K-, 7 I&N Dec. 594 (BIA 1957), and Matter of J-, 2 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 1945), overruled.

In the absence of a timely answer to the Notice of Intent to Discipline, the Board generally does not diverge from the sanction recommended in a Notice of Intent to Discipline that is based on reciprocal discipline.

An alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony is inadmissible under section 212(a)(8)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(8)(A) (2024), as an alien who is ineligible to citizenship. Matter of Kanga, 22 I&N Dec. 1206 (BIA 2000), overruled.

(1) When inter-proceeding similarities are considered in a credibility determination, the redaction of personally identifying information from inter-proceeding declarations provides sufficient protection of the declarants’ privacy and comports with the confidentiality regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a)–(c) (2026). 

(2) The procedural safeguards set forth in Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2015), do not require declarants to be made available for cross-examination before the Immigration Judge can consider the declarations for inter-proceeding comparison. Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2015), clarified.

The Immigration Judge erred in determining that the respondent met his burden of proving he is not a danger to the community where the respondent engaged in street racing and was arrested for driving on a suspended license, resisting arrest, and possession of contraband while in police detention.

(1)  The respondent did not demonstrate that summary dismissal of the Department of Homeland Security’s appeal was appropriate where he showed no prejudice from electronic service.

(2)  The Immigration Judge properly declined to consider documents filed after the merits hearing when the record was left open solely for the filing of other, specified documents and the respondent did not show prejudice from the exclusion of the late documents.

(3)  The respondent did not show he was prejudiced by the Immigration Judge qualifying the expert witness in certain areas but not others.

(4)  Where the respondent was not credible and did not provide sufficient corroborating evidence regarding his sexual orientation, he did not establish eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture on that basis. 

(1) The removal of former President Maduro from power and the ensuing transfer of executive authority constitute a change in country conditions in Venezuela for purposes of assessing an applicant’s prospective fear of persecution.

(2) Remand is required because the Immigration Judge did not sufficiently assess the effect of the changed country conditions on the respondent’s particularized risk of future persecution.

(1) When mailing a notice to appear by regular mail, the Department of Homeland Security can rely on the most recent address the alien has provided. 

(2) For purposes of an in absentia removal proceeding, written notice of the proceedings is sufficient if mailed to the most recent address the alien provided, which includes an address the alien provided before the issuance of the notice to appear. Matter of G-Y-R-, 23 I&N Dec. 181 (BIA 2001) (en banc), overruled.