BIA Opinions

BIA Decisions

Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988): Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must include a description of the agreement; proof that former counsel was informed of the complaint and given an opportunity to respond; and proof that a report was made to a disciplinary board (or reasons given why not). (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

In re J-J-, 1 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997) (en banc): The exception to the time and number limits on MTRs depends on a claim for asylum / WH / CAT that offers evidence of materially changed country conditions that could not have been known before. Also, in order for the Board / IJ to exercise their sua sponte authority to reopen a case, the circumstances must be “exceptional.” (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

In re S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722 (BIA 1997) (en banc): foundational for testimony and corroboration in asylum cases, especially regarding country conditions. Where corroborating evidence would be reasonably expected, it should be there, or else there should be a good explanation for why it isn’t. (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

In re M-S-, 22 I&N Dec. 349 (BIA 1998): Recission of in absentia deportation removal order is not a prerequisite for reopening a respondent’s case. Here, respondent wanted to reopen to consider her application for AOS, which she could not do if she also had to rescind (not having the excuse for failure to appear of exceptional circumstances / incarceration / lack of service). (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

In re G-D-, 22 I&N Dec. 1132 (BIA 1999): The BIA won’t be persuaded to reopen a case on their sua sponte authority despite an untimely MTR unless the circumstances are extremely compelling, such as a dramatic change in the law. (Incremental changes aren’t enough.) (Word Doc Summmary) (PDF Summary)

In re. Rojas [  (2001)]

In re G-Y-R-, 23 I&N Dec. 181 (BIA 2001) (en banc): If the record reflects that the respondent never received mailed service of the NTA with its advisals about address changes, then the respondent cannot be charged with receiving notice and cannot be removed in absentia. However, a respondent can be charged with receiving notice even if she did not personally see the NTA that was mailed to her address. (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

Matter of Ramos, 23 I&N Dec. 336 (BIA 2002) (en banc): Motion to Reconsider. DUI is not a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) for purposes of INA § 101(a)(43)(F) / 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F) (aggravated felony list) because drunk driving does not involve a mens rea above negligence. (Crime of violence requires “use” of force in the commission of a crime, which implies intentionality.) (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

In re J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 2008 (BIA 2007): Affirmed by Ndayshimiye v. A.G., 557 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2009) (except for the adjective”subordinate”).  Good intro to REAL ID Act of 2005 expectation for proving persecution: a protected ground must be at least one central reason for the alleged persecution. Mixed motives are acceptable, but the persecution on a protected ground must not be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate compared to other reasons for harm. (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

Matter of T-M-H- & S-W-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 193 (BIA 2010): If asylum applicant claims “changed circumstances” that justify missing the one-year application deadline, this does NOT grant an automatic one-year extension; a “reasonable” period of time after the materially changed circumstances is probably < 6 months. (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

Matter of N-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 526 (BIA 2011): [INA Sec. 208(b)(1)(B)(i) / 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)] Primer on post-REAL ID Act mixed motives analysis for whistleblowing / anti-corruption. Political opinion asylum case based on employee’s protesting against state-sponsored agency’s practices. (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

Matter of J-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 161 (BIA 2013): Respondent does not need to rescind an in absentia removal order in order to reopen it to address changed country conditions. There is no number or time limit on MTRs that involve applying for asylum based on changed country conditions. (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017): (<–Summary) Family membership can be a cognizable particular social group; must also prove nexus between membership & persecution for asylum.

Matter of Medina Jimenez (2018): Re. violation of protection order and removal proceedings for non-lawful permanent residents. (Summary)

Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez and Capula-Cortes, 27 I&N Dec. 520 (BIA 2019) (en banc), superseded by Niz-Chavez v. Garland (US 2021): Overruled: a subsequent Hearing Notice cures or perfects a defective NTA for purposes of the stop-time rule. Still intact: jurisdiction vests in the IJ even if the NTA was defective. (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I&N Dec. 808 (BIA 2020) [March 31, 2020]: Cancellation of removal only granted if circumstances are truly “exceptional and extremely unusual.” (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

Matter of K-S-E-, 27 I&N Dec. 818 (BIA 2020) [April 10, 2020]: Firm resettlement bar applies even if host country has made an offer of permanent residence and the individual has chosen not to accept the offer. (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

Matter of E-R-A-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2020):Landowners” will only count as a PSG if there is something immutable about the ownership. It’s also more likely to fly if it’s tied to political opinion. If drug cartels are just motivated by greed for land, it doesn’t count as persecution of landowners. (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

Matter of D-G-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 297 (BIA 2021): The mere continuation of an activity in the U.S. (like proselytizing in home country through mail / email) doesn’t constitute a “changed circumstances” that would excuse missing the one-year deadline for asylum, if this is the same activity that the alleged persecution targeted. (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)

Matter of Viera-Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 223 (BIA 2021): [8 U.S.C. §1229c(d)(1) / INA §240A(d)(1)] Defective NTAs, Periera, and Post-Conclusion Voluntary Departure stop-time rule (1 year of physical presence). Defective NTA does not trigger stop-time rule for PCVD either. This case was decided between Bermudez-Cota (BIA 2018) and Niz-Chavez (U.S. April 28, 2021), so it still holds that a subsequent Hearing Notice can cure a defective NTA and thus interrupt the accrual of 1 year of physical presence for PCVD. Incidental detail: factual difference between “I paid the smuggler” and “my mother paid” for discretionary analysis (may depend on respondent’s knowledge of the fee). (Word Doc Summary) (PDF Summary)