DHS has announced over $84 billion in civil fines issued to more than 103,000 noncompliant removees since the start of the current administration, with daily fines for refusing removal reaching $998 per day — find out what this enforcement escalation means.
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 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 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 D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, a federal district court vacated an agency policy that permitted the deportation of noncitizens to undisclosed third countries without prior notice. The judge ruled this practice unlawfully violates constitutional due process and statutory protections against returning vulnerable individuals to face severe persecution or torture.
In Matter of Laurent Castro (BIA 2026), the Board held that Immigration Judges must enter in absentia removal orders when proper notice is given and removability is established. Full analysis of the new precedent, implications for respondents and practitioners, and compliance guidance.
