The BIA ruled that nationals of stable, rights-respecting democracies generally face a high bar for discretionary asylum, holding that EU citizens are presumptively ineligible given their ability to reside lawfully across EU member states.
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Supreme Court held that seeking asylum at the border does not begin until a noncitizen crosses into the United States. The decision validates “metering” and limits inspection duties. Practitioners, employers, and asylum seekers should understand what the ruling changes and why timing matters.
In Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court narrowed TPS termination judicial review, holding the TPS statute bars most challenges to Secretary determinations while rejecting an equal protection claim, clearing the way for Haiti and Syria TPS terminations to proceed during litigation.
When DHS files Form I-213 evidence of alienage before a hearing both parties miss, the Board of Immigration Appeals has now confirmed: terminating proceedings is error. Immigration Judges must instead proceed with an in absentia hearing.
On April 3, 2026, the BIA issued Matter of Pelagio Mendoza, holding that lay testimony alone is generally insufficient cancellation of removal hardship evidence when qualifying relatives have sought medical treatment and expert records could have been produced. This binding ruling reshapes what practitioners must document in all cancellation of removal cases.
In Matter of Valenzuela Gallardo (BIA 2026), the Board reaffirmed that an obstruction of justice aggravated felony requires only a specific intent to interfere with the process of justice — not an ongoing proceeding. California accessory to a felony convictions with sentences of one year or more now categorically qualify. Practitioners and affected individuals should review their exposure immediately.
In Matter of Lopez-Orellana, 29 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 2026), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that Immigration Judges must proceed with in absentia removal rather than terminate proceedings when a respondent fails to appear and received adequate notice of the missed hearing, even if the original notice to appear was noncompliant.
In Matter of Mercado-Martinez, 29 I&N Dec. 529 (BIA 2026), the Board of Immigration Appeals clarified the evidentiary standard an Immigration Judge must apply before finding a Form I-213 unreliable in removal proceedings — with significant consequences for alienage determinations and deportation defense strategies.
In Matter of Z-R-C-N-, the BIA held that a respondent cannot prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when the person she hired was not an attorney and never represented himself as one. The decision also addresses the speculative nature of SIJ-based adjustment of status where a 4-year visa backlog exists. Immigration practitioners and affected families need to understand both holdings.
In Matter of Arevalo-Vargas, 29 I&N Dec. 519 (BIA 2026), the Board of Immigration Appeals tightened the cancellation of removal hardship standard, holding that economic detriment, reduced educational opportunity, and emotional hardship from family separation do not meet the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship threshold required under INA § 240A(b)(1). Practitioners and affected families should understand how this binding precedent affects pending and future applications.
