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 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.
In Matter of Medina Madrid, decided March 13, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that removal proceedings administratively closed for over 13 years must be recalendared, and that an intent to file a provisional unlawful presence waiver does not justify continued administrative closure.
In Matter of Z-N-L-, decided March 12, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed an Immigration Judge’s $7,500 bond order, finding that conflicting state residence records and an unverified sponsor demonstrated the respondent’s flight risk under the immigration bond standard.
In Matter of Pinzon Rozo, the BIA ruled that an approved special immigrant juvenile classification petition does not justify a removal proceedings continuance when a visa priority date remains unavailable for an uncertain, lengthy period. Learn what this 2026 decision means for SIJ applicants.
This immigration case brief explains how a federal district court partially vacated EOIR’s 2026 interim rule on BIA appeal procedures, holding that major changes to immigration appeals required notice and comment before taking effect while leaving narrower procedural changes in place.
The Board of Immigration Appeals vacated withholding of removal for a Haitian national in Matter of R-B-E-, finding a fundamental change in circumstances rebutted the future persecution presumption and that the respondent’s fraud conviction constituted a particularly serious crime under U.S. immigration law.
In Matter of D-J-L-, the Board of Immigration Appeals vacated an Immigration Judge’s grant of CAT deferral. The Board held that the judge clearly erred by assigning significant weight to an expert witness whose strong advocacy background prevented an impartial assessment of removal conditions.
