Ep. 338 - Precedential Decisions: 10/12/2026 - 10/18/2026 (prima facie reopening; family nexus & gangs; visa delay & continuances; expedited removal & Hezbollah photos; psychological harm; sexual abuse of a minor; change in The Gambia; crime of violence)

WEBVTT
00:00:03.520 --> 00:00:09.919
Welcome to Immigration Review, your weekly source for immigration case law updates and insights.
00:00:10.160 --> 00:00:11.599
I'm your host, Kevin A.
00:00:11.759 --> 00:00:26.160
Gregg, a partner at the Immigration, Medical Malpractice, and Business Litigation Law Firm Curzban, Kurzban, Tetzelli, and Pratt, back again to review the week's precedential immigration cases, rummaging through the decisions so you don't have to.
00:00:26.800 --> 00:00:31.199
This podcast is sponsored by Serenade Ke Immigration.
00:00:31.600 --> 00:00:35.359
If your caseload is growing, you've probably felt this.
00:00:35.840 --> 00:00:41.200
At some point, more cases start to mean more chaos or more hiring.
00:00:41.439 --> 00:00:43.280
But it doesn't have to work that way.
00:00:43.439 --> 00:00:51.920
There's a really good guide on immigration case management that shows how better systems and workflows can actually increase your capacity without just adding more people.
00:00:52.079 --> 00:00:55.759
It covers everything from data consistency to client communication.
00:00:56.000 --> 00:01:00.000
And it's totally free for immigration review podcast listeners.
00:01:00.240 --> 00:01:10.319
Get this and tons of other free resources at get.com forward slash IRP or click on the special link in the show notes.
00:01:10.959 --> 00:01:16.319
This podcast is also sponsored by Gonzalez and Gonzalez Immigration Bonds.
00:01:16.719 --> 00:01:18.319
Immigration Attorneys.
00:01:18.480 --> 00:01:23.120
Once you've secured a bond, let Gonzalez Gonzalez take it from there.
00:01:23.439 --> 00:01:35.200
In business and family-owned for 75 years, Gonzalez ⁇ Gonzalez helps other families post immigration bonds quickly, easily, and with full support every step of the way.
00:01:35.439 --> 00:01:43.519
Sure, you can post directly with DHS, but that means no guidance, no help when something goes wrong, and a four to six month wait for a refund.
00:01:43.680 --> 00:01:53.760
With Gonzalez and Gonzalez, families get hands-on help throughout the entire process and typically get refunds within one to two weeks of receiving the I-391 notice.
00:01:54.000 --> 00:01:57.040
Tired of being the point of contact for every bond question?
00:01:57.200 --> 00:02:00.079
Let Gonzalez and Gonzalez take those calls.
00:02:00.319 --> 00:02:10.080
They'll handle the paperwork, the system issues, and the family's concerns so you can focus on what really matters: winning the case and helping your clients stay in the country.
00:02:10.319 --> 00:02:16.400
You can reach Gonzalez and Gonzalez at 833-409-9200.
00:02:16.879 --> 00:02:17.599
Their fee?
00:02:19.680 --> 00:02:24.800
And for bonds of$10,000 or more, they can defer the fee and deduct it from the refund.
00:02:25.280 --> 00:02:26.319
Financing options?
00:02:26.479 --> 00:02:27.840
They've got those too.
00:02:28.080 --> 00:02:36.560
Give Gonzalez and Gonzalez a call, check them out at immigrationbond.com, or click on their special link in the show notes.
00:02:37.280 --> 00:02:47.840
And as always, this show does not constitute legal advice and is intended to keep you up to date and enable you, my dear colleagues, to excel in court.
00:02:48.479 --> 00:02:52.319
So, without further ado, let's start the review.
00:03:08.800 --> 00:03:10.159
Bring on the lawsuit.
00:03:10.400 --> 00:03:12.319
What a cruel administration.
00:03:12.560 --> 00:03:16.639
But also Justice Barrett and the majority gave them the path and patel.
00:03:16.800 --> 00:03:29.039
But also Mitch McConnell stole Merrick Garland's seat after Justice Scalia passed, and then didn't apply the same logic to the exceptionally more egregious passing of Justice Ginsburg and the confirmation of Justice Barrett.
00:03:29.759 --> 00:03:30.639
I'm sorry guys.
00:03:30.800 --> 00:03:35.039
Once you start going down that rabbit hole of frustration, it is very hard to stop.
00:03:35.360 --> 00:03:39.680
Anyway, yes, the attack on adjustment of status has very much begun.
00:03:40.080 --> 00:03:44.560
Also, this week, the Third Circuit declined to go in Bonk on Mahmoud Khalil's case.
00:03:44.800 --> 00:03:50.560
Maybe I missed what had happened, or maybe it was just never precedential before, but I also don't see a majority decision.
00:03:50.719 --> 00:03:53.199
It is the denial of rehearing in Bank, though.
00:03:53.439 --> 00:03:56.879
We do have dissents, though, and it's all about jurisdiction.
00:03:57.120 --> 00:04:08.639
Reports are already discussing a petition for a writ of sortier to the Supreme Court being filed or forthcoming, which should be granted if the court cares as much as it says it does about the First Amendment rights of human beings.
00:04:09.280 --> 00:04:10.960
The stakes couldn't be higher.
00:04:11.120 --> 00:04:24.000
As the dissenting judges conclude at the Third Circuit, quote, the judiciary serves as an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances, protecting civil liberties and checking legislative and executive discretion.
00:04:24.240 --> 00:04:30.560
We cannot fulfill that role if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the executive branch to check itself.
00:04:30.800 --> 00:04:31.759
End quote.
00:04:32.560 --> 00:04:33.759
There's some news.
00:04:33.920 --> 00:04:39.040
Here's a shout-out to the American Constitution Society, which I very much support.
00:04:39.279 --> 00:04:43.120
I am the vice president of the San Diego Lawyers Chapter this year.
00:04:43.439 --> 00:04:50.959
ACS is a nonprofit that works to advocate for laws and legal systems that support a multiracial, representative democracy.
00:04:51.199 --> 00:05:09.120
This includes a judiciary that reflects the diversity of the public it serves, democratic institutions that advance equity and justice, uphold the rule of law, and guard against abuse of power, a robust and diverse legal civil society that promotes progressive transformation of laws and legal systems, and much more.
00:05:09.360 --> 00:05:23.199
Built in response to the Federalist Society in 2001, ACS celebrates its 25th anniversary this year and is helping to organize lawyers in several communities, including new chapters in South Carolina, Indiana, and more.
00:05:23.839 --> 00:05:33.839
Hit me up if you want to get involved in the San Diego chapter and get connected to your local chapter via email at campus atacslaw.org.
00:05:33.920 --> 00:05:36.959
That's campus at acslaw.org.
00:05:37.199 --> 00:05:38.879
Links in the show notes.
00:05:39.680 --> 00:05:45.839
Having said that, in an effort to protect the judiciary, here is what the judiciary said this week.
00:05:50.959 --> 00:05:53.360
Our first case is Rodriguez Solas v.
00:05:53.439 --> 00:05:57.680
Blanche, published by the Fourth Circuit on May 21st, 2026.
00:05:58.079 --> 00:06:00.319
This case is about the right to counsel.
00:06:00.639 --> 00:06:03.040
Miss Rodriguez Solas is from Honduras.
00:06:03.199 --> 00:06:07.839
She was represented for many years by an attorney appearing before the Charlotte Immigration Court.
00:06:08.000 --> 00:06:14.160
For much of that time, the case was administratively closed, although an asylum application was filed before admin closure.
00:06:14.319 --> 00:06:19.839
The case woke up again during Trump won, but four more years of delay occurred.
00:06:20.319 --> 00:06:22.079
Some of it was because of COVID, though.
00:06:22.240 --> 00:06:23.199
You guys remember COVID?
00:06:23.439 --> 00:06:24.639
I remember COVID.
00:06:24.879 --> 00:06:27.519
Things were crazy in immigration court.
00:06:27.920 --> 00:06:34.240
Before that, though, an individual hearing actually occurred in 2018, but neither counsel nor Miss Rodriguez Solas showed up.
00:06:34.480 --> 00:06:39.120
When the immigration judge called the attorney, the attorney said she failed to put the hearing in her calendar.
00:06:39.360 --> 00:06:45.680
Fortunately for the attorney and Miss Rodriguez Solas, the immigration judge reset the individual hearing and did not go in absentia.
00:06:46.399 --> 00:06:49.360
Mortelay occurred, and not really a cause, but how about this?
00:06:49.519 --> 00:07:01.360
The attorney, quote, asked the court to provide a Honduran Sign Languinter for Miss Rodriguez Solas' sister, who was blind and deaf and would be testifying at Miss Rodriguez Solas' hearing.
00:07:01.600 --> 00:07:02.319
End quote.
00:07:03.519 --> 00:07:04.800
Two questions from me there.
00:07:04.959 --> 00:07:08.560
One, does Lion Bridge provide such a unique person?
00:07:08.720 --> 00:07:12.879
And two, what good is a sign language interpreter to a blind witness?
00:07:13.439 --> 00:07:22.480
Maybe I suppose it's to translate the signs that the sister is doing for the court, but how do you then converse with such witness in the other direction?
00:07:23.120 --> 00:07:25.680
Obviously there's a way, Helen Keller, all that stuff.
00:07:25.759 --> 00:07:27.680
I'm just genuinely curious.
00:07:28.240 --> 00:07:31.600
After years and years, a different immigration judge got to sign the case.
00:07:31.920 --> 00:07:38.800
The matter was set for a merits hearing, and the IJ and counsel set an outline for briefing and identified issues, and things seemed to be ready to go.
00:07:39.040 --> 00:07:43.360
But about seven weeks before the final hearing, the longtime attorney moved to withdraw.
00:07:43.519 --> 00:07:50.000
And that's after over a decade of representation, technically, because what is administratively closed never dies.
00:07:50.879 --> 00:07:56.879
The IJ granted the motion to withdraw seven days later, so about six weeks before the individual hearing.
00:07:57.439 --> 00:08:08.560
By the way, in a footnote, we learn that there is one and only one Honduran Sign Language interpreter, and that interpreter did the sisters' separate asylum hearing.
00:08:08.959 --> 00:08:10.160
The more you know.
00:08:10.800 --> 00:08:12.240
Back to the case at hand.
00:08:12.399 --> 00:08:17.040
Now attorneyless, Miss Rodriguez Solas requested more time to secure an attorney.
00:08:17.199 --> 00:08:21.680
She said the attorneys that she had contacted couldn't take her case on such short notice.
00:08:21.920 --> 00:08:29.920
The IJ denied based on how long everything had been pending, and the fact that the IG believed that Miss Rodriguez Solas had had enough time to get a new attorney.
00:08:30.240 --> 00:08:36.159
The IJ went through the asylum application with Miss Rodriguez Solas, and it seems like she didn't really know what was in it.
00:08:36.399 --> 00:08:37.919
She didn't speak fluent English.
00:08:38.159 --> 00:08:43.440
She blamed the prior attorney for deficiencies, and the IJ seemed to defend the prior attorney a bit.
00:08:43.759 --> 00:08:51.279
The sister did end up testifying, by the way, and the IJ ultimately denied asylum based on an adverse credibility finding.
00:08:51.600 --> 00:08:56.000
The BIA affirmed it all and held that there had been no due process violation.
00:08:56.559 --> 00:08:58.960
The Fourth Circuit majority remanded.
00:08:59.200 --> 00:09:01.519
Judge Quedelbaum is in dissent.
00:09:02.000 --> 00:09:15.279
But for the majority you see, the INA itself provides non-citizens the right of, quote, the privilege of being represented at no expense to the government by counsel of the non-citizens choosing who is authorized to practice in such proceedings.
00:09:16.879 --> 00:09:34.320
And matter of CB, BIA 2012, apparently holds that unless a non-citizen waives that right, IJs, quote, must, end quote, afford non-citizens, quote, a reasonable and realistic period of time to provide a fair opportunity to seek, speak with, and retain counsel, end quote.
00:09:35.039 --> 00:09:38.480
Violated here under these circumstances, explains the court.
00:09:38.879 --> 00:09:40.080
Much comes down to whether Mr.
00:09:40.480 --> 00:09:45.519
Gasilas had enough time to get a new attorney, but even that time period is all over the place to the court.
00:09:45.759 --> 00:09:52.399
The IJ, BIA, OIL, and petition for review counsel all argue that it was a slightly different amount of time.
00:09:52.639 --> 00:10:03.039
The Fourth Circuit seems to think it was about a month, but also faults the BIA for not accounting for the fact that there was also briefing due before the hearing, making the time to get counsel that much shorter.
00:10:03.279 --> 00:10:15.200
And in any event, quote, a new lawyer would need time to build rapport with both Miss Rodriguez Solas and her sister to elicit the sort of extremely traumatic testimony necessary for her asylum hearing, end quote.
00:10:15.360 --> 00:10:20.480
And they'd have to navigate how on earth to get witness testimony from a blind and deaf witness.
00:10:20.720 --> 00:10:23.440
Quite the fact that one, I do keep coming back to it.
00:10:23.600 --> 00:10:24.480
Quite unique.
00:10:24.799 --> 00:10:33.360
It is therefore, quote, unsurprising that Miss Rodriguez Solas could not find a new lawyer to take her case in the face of two quickly approaching deadlines, end quote.
00:10:33.679 --> 00:10:42.960
Reframed, the Fourth Circuit explains that actually this was actually only Miss Rodriguez Solas' first request for more time to get a new lawyer after more than a decade of representation.
00:10:43.519 --> 00:10:52.080
Given this and the absence of evidence that this was merely a dilatory tactic, the court held that the IJ violated Miss Rodriguez Solas' statutory right to counsel.
00:10:52.399 --> 00:10:59.039
The Fourth Circuit rejected Oyle's argument that given that only she and her sister needed to testify, she didn't really need a lawyer anyway.
00:10:59.200 --> 00:11:06.559
Quote, besides trivializing the important work of immigration lawyers, that argument gets the statutory framework backwards.
00:11:06.799 --> 00:11:21.840
Like the similarly worded Sixth Amendment provision, with which it shares obvious similarities, the statutory provision we are dealing with here does not say non-citizens in removal proceedings have a right to be represented by a lawyer if but only if they can establish they need one to effectively make their case.
00:11:22.080 --> 00:11:22.799
End quote.
00:11:23.039 --> 00:11:24.080
They just get one.
00:11:24.159 --> 00:11:25.679
That's what the statute says.
00:11:25.919 --> 00:11:27.360
If they can pay for it.
00:11:27.679 --> 00:11:30.960
And score one for the immigration lawyers in the Fourth Circuit.
00:11:31.759 --> 00:11:36.960
The Court rejected some other silly arguments from Oil 2, if I'm being honest, which I always am.
00:11:37.279 --> 00:11:41.840
The Court also distinguished decisions out of the Sixth, First, and Ninth Circuits.
00:11:42.399 --> 00:11:48.080
Having found that the right was violated, that the Fourth Circuit remanaged so the BIA could determine, in the first instance, whether Mr.
00:11:48.240 --> 00:11:50.720
Rodriga Solos was prejudiced by all this.
00:11:51.039 --> 00:11:54.320
But isn't prejudice resumed when the right to counsel is denied?
00:11:54.559 --> 00:11:56.320
I am slightly confused, Court.
00:11:56.480 --> 00:11:57.519
A little confused.
00:11:58.080 --> 00:12:02.000
And here we go, Miss Rodrigo Solis made that very argument, among a few others.
00:12:02.480 --> 00:12:09.360
Well, it looks like in the past the Fourth Circuit held that prejudice was required under facts like this, so that's a star decisis problem.
00:12:09.919 --> 00:12:19.279
Then again, acknowledges the Fourth Circuit, there's its recent Quintero decision, and other important cases, indeed recognizing that in similar contexts, prejudice can be presumed.
00:12:19.759 --> 00:12:29.759
Given all that, though, it seems that the court is kicking it to the BIA for the BIA to determine whether prejudice is presumed for such a statutory violation, among other related things.
00:12:30.240 --> 00:12:30.720
Meh.
00:12:31.120 --> 00:12:33.200
Big meh energy from this guy.
00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:43.360
Judge Quaddlebaum in dissent sees this as an abusive discretion issue that doesn't meet the standard and worries that the majority gives non-citizens too many Sixth Amendment rights.
00:12:44.080 --> 00:12:50.480
But with a remand, congratulations, Parisa Sadegui, Andres Lopez, and Benjamin Winograd.
00:12:50.799 --> 00:12:52.000
For petitioner.
00:12:52.960 --> 00:12:54.720
And that is Rodrigo Solas V.
00:12:54.799 --> 00:12:55.519
Blanche.
00:13:03.679 --> 00:13:05.120
Two from the BIA this week.
00:13:05.200 --> 00:13:07.519
First, matter of IBMS.
00:13:08.320 --> 00:13:11.679
The flounder that is the BIA is back this week.
00:13:12.159 --> 00:13:14.480
Sincere thanks for taking last week off, guys.
00:13:14.639 --> 00:13:15.519
Really mean it.
00:13:15.919 --> 00:13:26.639
And honestly, I don't actually know what it means to refer to the BIA as a flounder, but a longtime listener and recently minted bright new paralegal wrote me this week and referred to the BIA as a flounder.
00:13:26.879 --> 00:13:28.720
And well, it made me chuckle.
00:13:29.039 --> 00:13:30.559
So I share it with you all.
00:13:30.960 --> 00:13:34.399
This is a matter of IBMS published by the Flounder.
00:13:35.120 --> 00:13:42.799
And with a name like that, I'm not gonna do the chip processor pun, and I'm certainly not gonna do a gastrointestinal pun on the case name.
00:13:42.960 --> 00:13:44.960
Tempt me as you might, BIA.
00:13:45.519 --> 00:13:46.960
I am better than that.
00:13:47.519 --> 00:13:48.559
Pro se Mr.
00:13:48.639 --> 00:13:52.480
IBMS didn't respond to the appeal because, well, he's pro se.
00:13:52.879 --> 00:14:08.799
The BIA issued this holding and states as one of its top line holdings that, quote, an immigration judge must act as a neutral and impartial arbiter, and the obligation of neutrality extends equally to an immigration judge's treatment of both parties.
00:14:09.039 --> 00:14:09.759
End quote.
00:14:10.159 --> 00:14:12.960
Who, Pray Tell, are you reminding BIA?
00:14:13.360 --> 00:14:14.559
Let's find out.
00:14:15.200 --> 00:14:22.639
This is an interlocutory appeal, which the BIA states it rarely entertains, though it has done so like ten times in the last year and a half.
00:14:22.799 --> 00:14:25.600
All DHS appeals, if I'm not mistaken.
00:14:26.320 --> 00:14:28.480
This is about a change of venue motion.
00:14:28.799 --> 00:14:36.720
The respondents are from Brazil and entered without authorization near El Paso, but the notice to appear was filed by DHS in the Boston Immigration Court.
00:14:36.879 --> 00:14:44.159
Two master calendar hearings occurred, and then there was a merits hearing set, and then that hearing actually went forward, the merits hearing.
00:14:44.559 --> 00:14:53.279
Before that, two EOIR 33 change of address forms were filed, but both were in the same city and had the same zip code as the address in the notice to appear.
00:14:53.440 --> 00:14:55.039
So that's a little weird.
00:14:55.519 --> 00:14:58.720
Direct examination occurred at the merits hearing.
00:14:58.960 --> 00:15:00.960
And it's all happening over WebEx.
00:15:01.360 --> 00:15:03.919
Then counsel for the respondent requested a recess.
00:15:04.080 --> 00:15:07.679
Quote, the IJ engaged in an off-the-record conversation with the parties.
00:15:07.840 --> 00:15:12.480
According to the IJ's summary of the off-the-record discussion, it related to asylum derivation.
00:15:12.879 --> 00:15:19.120
It related to asylum derivation issues and the responsibility to request a change of venue, end quote.
00:15:19.360 --> 00:15:24.720
This after apparently counsel said at the beginning of the hearing that a venue change wasn't desired.
00:15:25.039 --> 00:15:30.159
Then, though, a venue change motion was made for transfer to the Chelmsford Immigration Court.
00:15:30.559 --> 00:15:34.799
The motion was granted, even though the respondents were appearing over WebEx.
00:15:35.600 --> 00:15:42.240
So I'm not gonna lie, the BIA has picked an extraordinary fact pattern to rule against a motion to change venue grant.
00:15:42.480 --> 00:15:44.000
That's kinda wild.
00:15:44.559 --> 00:15:54.879
That said, the zip code and the EYR 33, and I suppose the notice to appear, did align with the Channelsford Immigration Court, according to that EOIR zip code finder thingy that they now use.
00:15:55.679 --> 00:15:59.600
All of this is happening over DHS's objection, so DHS appealed.
00:15:59.759 --> 00:16:03.519
Interlocutor, because the case isn't over, it's just about a change of venue.
00:16:03.759 --> 00:16:05.919
The BIA sustained the appeal.
00:16:06.240 --> 00:16:10.559
Motions to change venue are granted for good cause, that amorphous term.
00:16:11.039 --> 00:16:29.440
In the venue change context, quote, relevant factors including administrative convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, the location of the witnesses, cost of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location, factors commonly associated with a non-citizen's place of residence and the position of the opposing party, end quote, should be considered.
00:16:29.759 --> 00:16:37.360
No factor is necessarily weighed heavier than others, explains the BIA, but then it goes right to the importance of expeditious treatment of the case.
00:16:37.600 --> 00:16:47.919
The BIA explains that this factor weighs heavier against a venue change as proceedings progress, and particularly when an individual hearing has been scheduled or already commenced, as occurred here.
00:16:48.159 --> 00:16:55.279
And quote, absent extraordinary circumstances, venues should not be changed the day of an individual hearing, end quote.
00:16:55.840 --> 00:17:00.080
The BIA doesn't believe that the IJ balanced any of that in this case.
00:17:00.480 --> 00:17:21.039
As to the zip code thing that I do believe IJs rely on kind of heavy these days, quote, the mere fact that the respondents reside in a zip code corresponding with another court is insufficient cause to outweigh the other significant factors that militate against changing venue at this late stage of proceedings, including DHS's opposition and the need for expeditious treatment of the case.
00:17:21.200 --> 00:17:22.000
End quote.
00:17:22.319 --> 00:17:24.000
So definitely some qualifiers there.
00:17:24.160 --> 00:17:26.400
Zip code thing's still powerful, I guess.
00:17:26.640 --> 00:17:31.200
Not to mention no prejudice, it seems anyway, given that it was a WebEx individual hearing.
00:17:31.359 --> 00:17:36.319
Or at least none shown here in the undefended pro se appeals defense.
00:17:37.200 --> 00:17:40.640
The BIA also isn't happy with the off-the-record discussion.
00:17:40.880 --> 00:17:44.799
I personally believe them helpful under appropriate circumstances.
00:17:45.119 --> 00:17:49.200
Judge Bartolome, who I interviewed last year, would never do them, in my experience.
00:17:49.359 --> 00:17:50.880
He has an opposite view.
00:17:51.200 --> 00:18:04.240
The BIA states here that IJs should limit them, and that parties shall be given the opportunity to add or amend to summaries done by the IJ, which quite frankly has always been offered to me in my experience, and to DHS counsel.
00:18:04.480 --> 00:18:09.440
In this case, though, the BIA doesn't believe the IJ properly memorialized the off-the-record conversation.
00:18:09.680 --> 00:18:13.759
Nor does the BIA like that the IJ unmarked previously marked exhibits.
00:18:13.920 --> 00:18:21.599
Even if the venue change had been proper, explains the BIA, proceedings still continue, just at a new court, so the exhibits can remain.
00:18:21.920 --> 00:18:36.160
Explains the BIA, while IJs have broad authority to conduct and control immigration proceedings, provided they avoid the BIA's landmines being issued every week, IJs must still act as, quote, neutral and impartial arbiters to both parties, end quote.
00:18:36.400 --> 00:18:39.759
Fundamental fairness demands it, explains the BIA.
00:18:40.160 --> 00:18:46.000
DHS2 must, quote, be afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard, end quote.
00:18:46.480 --> 00:18:58.079
Does an IJ who takes over direct or cross-examination, pre-termit applications without motion, or deny motions where no response is filed, act as a neutral and impartial arbiter, BIA?
00:18:58.400 --> 00:19:00.559
Truly asking for a friend.
00:19:00.960 --> 00:19:08.640
Particularly that cross-examination question, BIA, if you could get back to me on whether that is a neutral and impartial arbiter.
00:19:09.519 --> 00:19:20.799
But quote, here, the immigration judge's comments and conduct during the individual hearing raise concerns regarding neutrality and create an appearance of bias, which is inconsistent with the IJ's role in these proceedings.
00:19:22.160 --> 00:19:29.039
The BIA is particularly troubled by the IJ's statement that she often gives deference to a non-citizen's venue choice.
00:19:29.680 --> 00:19:34.240
So, IJs, you cannot often give preference to DHS's venue choice.
00:19:34.960 --> 00:19:40.480
Quote, IJs must assiduously refrain from becoming advocates for either party, end quote.
00:19:41.119 --> 00:19:44.480
So I guess that does answer my cross-examination question, guys.
00:19:44.720 --> 00:19:46.400
IJs shouldn't do it.
00:19:46.799 --> 00:19:48.400
You heard it here from the BIA.
00:19:49.200 --> 00:19:55.920
Bias was so strong based on that statement made by the IJ that the BIA reassigned the case to a different judge on remand.
00:19:56.240 --> 00:19:57.920
My goodness, the bias.
00:19:58.720 --> 00:20:07.440
Also pretty interesting that the BIA would go out of its way to reassign the case when it surely knows, as I do through my sources, that the IJ was already fired.
00:20:07.839 --> 00:20:10.000
Are you just trying to make a point, BIA?
00:20:10.319 --> 00:20:12.079
That's not very appellate of you.
00:20:12.640 --> 00:20:18.640
I will fall on my sword if my sources were wrong and that transfer to a different IJ was actually necessary.
00:20:19.119 --> 00:20:21.599
Someone at the BIA, feel free to get back to me.
00:20:22.000 --> 00:20:24.079
But DHS won its appeal.
00:20:25.039 --> 00:20:27.440
And that is a matter of IBMS.
00:20:37.519 --> 00:20:39.920
You didn't go to law school to enter data.
00:20:40.079 --> 00:20:41.039
I know I didn't.
00:20:41.200 --> 00:20:42.240
Yet here you are.
00:20:42.559 --> 00:20:49.279
H1B season in full swing, and your team is buried in beneficiary forms, document chasing, and data entry.
00:20:49.440 --> 00:20:54.160
That's$400 an hour in legal talent doing$20 an hour work.
00:20:54.480 --> 00:20:56.880
Staffi plugs directly into your workflow.
00:20:57.200 --> 00:21:01.599
Staffi handles the data entry, document collection, and H1B form prep.
00:21:01.759 --> 00:21:04.799
Your team reviews it, you approve it, you bill.
00:21:05.039 --> 00:21:13.839
With the new wage-weighted selection process adding even more admin pressure this season, the firms that scale are the ones that stop doing it all themselves.
00:21:14.079 --> 00:21:18.319
Say yes to more H1B clients without burning out your team.
00:21:18.559 --> 00:21:27.200
Visit staffy.cc or call 786-891-5619 or click on the special link in the show notes.
00:21:27.440 --> 00:21:31.519
Because you deserve a practice that grows without burning you out.
00:21:33.680 --> 00:21:37.599
Moving on to Matter of LAD published by the BIA, Matter of Lad.
00:21:38.640 --> 00:21:40.880
Asylum Denial Fridays.
00:21:41.279 --> 00:21:46.400
This one regarding a Mexican man with schizophrenia deemed incompetent to represent himself.
00:21:46.640 --> 00:21:50.319
The BIA has overturned an immigration judge's grant of asylum.
00:21:50.720 --> 00:21:56.160
The asserted particular social group is, quote, Mexican men with schizoaffective disorder, end quote.
00:21:56.400 --> 00:21:58.160
The BIA doesn't like the group.
00:21:58.640 --> 00:21:59.759
A particular social group, of course.
00:22:00.319 --> 00:22:09.279
Must one be composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, two, defined with particularity, and three, be socially distinct within the society in question.
00:22:09.680 --> 00:22:18.960
The BIA states without citation that, quote, particular social groups related to mental illnesses present distinct cognizability challenges, end quote.
00:22:19.359 --> 00:22:27.920
Mental health conditions change, and even if they don't, the symptoms often do over time or diverge even between individuals with the same mental health issue, explains the BIA.
00:22:28.079 --> 00:22:30.240
Plus, medication can sometimes help.
00:22:30.480 --> 00:22:49.519
As such, in its campaign to rewrite immigration law, the BIA makes this expansive holding, quote, in most cases, a particular social group based on a diagnosis alone will not be cognizable, considering the broad spectrum of severity and symptoms covered and the extent to which symptoms are reasonably controlled by medication, end quote.
00:22:50.000 --> 00:22:58.799
Now, non-citizens can narrow their particular social group, but then that narrowing might result in the particular social group not having clear boundaries, explains the BIA.
00:22:59.119 --> 00:23:02.000
So kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't, right?
00:23:02.960 --> 00:23:12.400
You cannot narrow a diagnosis-based particular social group by adding, quote, undefined potential symptoms that could be present with a diagnosis, end quote.
00:23:12.880 --> 00:23:14.079
What will cut it?
00:23:14.319 --> 00:23:16.240
The BIA isn't very clear.
00:23:16.720 --> 00:23:22.000
Very good at saying no these days, though, but not very clear at what wins the day.
00:23:22.240 --> 00:23:24.640
Here the particular social group did not succeed.
00:23:24.799 --> 00:23:30.880
Quote, the term schizoaffective disorder covers a broad spectrum of behavior exhibited with varying degrees of severity.
00:23:31.039 --> 00:23:35.839
The prefford group does not include any limiting language to narrow its breath, end quote.
00:23:36.240 --> 00:23:47.920
And even though the IJ narrowed it, literally in conformance with some fourth circuit precedent, I think, the BIA doesn't believe the narrowing characteristics defined in the record or the record evidence sufficient on this point.
00:23:48.960 --> 00:23:54.400
All that holding is about particularity, but the BIA also doesn't see the group as socially distinct either.
00:23:54.640 --> 00:24:08.079
Quote, for particular social groups related to mental illness, the proper consideration is whether society perceives individuals in the proposed group distinctly, not whether a doctor or psychologist would view one mental health illness as distinct from another.
00:24:09.920 --> 00:24:17.359
And would Mexican society really, for example, differentiate between someone with bipolar disorder as opposed to someone with schizophrenia?
00:24:17.519 --> 00:24:19.359
The BIA doesn't think so.
00:24:20.079 --> 00:24:30.480
Ruining my Friday evening, the BIA then proceeded to assume the group cognizable and write four more pages about why, regardless, asylum is too speculative to be granted on that basis.
00:24:30.720 --> 00:24:35.200
The circuits have done this dance for years and come out in different ways, so check your circuit.
00:24:35.359 --> 00:24:38.000
Here's the BIA's version summarized.
00:24:38.319 --> 00:24:39.039
Maybe Mr.
00:24:39.119 --> 00:24:40.799
Ladd can get treatment in Mexico.
00:24:40.880 --> 00:24:42.160
The BIA doesn't know.
00:24:42.319 --> 00:24:43.680
That cuts against him.
00:24:43.839 --> 00:24:45.599
And maybe his family can support him.
00:24:45.759 --> 00:24:47.119
BIA is unsure.
00:24:47.680 --> 00:24:50.400
Regardless, the BIA believes it's speculative that Mr.
00:24:50.480 --> 00:24:54.720
Ladd would behave in a way that got him involuntarily institutionalized.
00:24:54.960 --> 00:25:02.640
And even if that happened, the BIA doesn't think he'd be harmed on account of his membership in this group, even if his conditions were bad in that facility.
00:25:02.880 --> 00:25:11.839
Countries have a right to involuntarily detain and treat, quote, potentially dangerous mental illnesses, end quote, explains the BIA, relying on that rough Jossie V.
00:25:11.920 --> 00:25:14.880
Garland decision from the Fourth Circuit a few years ago.
00:25:15.119 --> 00:25:28.319
Quote, determining the appropriate allocation of resources to address involuntary mental health treatment is part of a nation's sovereignty authority and thus well beyond the authority of the immigration courts or the BIA to assess, end quote.
00:25:28.559 --> 00:25:30.880
The BIA sees no motivation to harm Mr.
00:25:31.039 --> 00:25:31.759
Ladd either.
00:25:31.920 --> 00:25:35.200
Lack of resources and training at worst to the board.
00:25:35.920 --> 00:25:39.599
To the extent there is record evidence, well, it's not specific enough to Mr.
00:25:39.680 --> 00:25:40.079
Ladd.
00:25:40.319 --> 00:25:41.920
That common refrain.
00:25:42.480 --> 00:25:45.519
Oh, the evidentiary burden asylum seekers have.
00:25:46.079 --> 00:26:00.880
Attempting to expand matter of JFF into asylum, the BIA states without any citation that, quote, a series of speculative occurrences that also lack evidence of persecutory intent is insufficient to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution.
00:26:01.119 --> 00:26:01.839
End quote.
00:26:02.400 --> 00:26:04.559
Though 10% chance is the standard.
00:26:04.960 --> 00:26:06.400
Remember it, folks.
00:26:07.200 --> 00:26:10.240
BIA doesn't see a pattern or practice claim either.
00:26:11.039 --> 00:26:19.920
Anyone else getting the feeling that the BIA is loading up on precedent to then eventually summarily and brutally tear through its backlog whenever the hammer falls?
00:26:20.559 --> 00:26:21.440
Hope not.
00:26:21.839 --> 00:26:22.880
Seems likely.
00:26:23.279 --> 00:26:23.920
As for Mr.
00:26:24.079 --> 00:26:30.480
Ladd, he has lost his asylum grant, but will now have the opportunity to pursue a convention against torture protection on Reman.
00:26:31.039 --> 00:26:33.680
But with friends like these, I'm not hopeful.
00:26:34.640 --> 00:26:36.799
And that is a matter of L A D.
00:26:45.039 --> 00:26:47.279
Concluding with two from the First Circuit.
00:26:47.440 --> 00:26:49.279
The first, Vasquez Chavez v.
00:26:49.359 --> 00:26:53.519
Blanche, published by the First Circuit on May 22nd, 2026.
00:26:54.160 --> 00:26:55.920
This case is about asylum.
00:26:56.240 --> 00:26:56.400
Mr.
00:26:56.559 --> 00:27:01.599
Vasquez Chavez is from El Salvador and testified to years of abuse from his family as a child.
00:27:01.839 --> 00:27:05.359
He fled to America in 2016 after his father tried to kill him.
00:27:05.599 --> 00:27:11.279
Barely an adult at that time, he was granted voluntary departure but returned shortly thereafter.
00:27:11.759 --> 00:27:15.519
Rather than reinstate a removal order, as I believe DHS could have done, Mr.
00:27:15.680 --> 00:27:20.000
Vasquez Chavez was placed in removal proceedings where he brought an asylum claim.
00:27:20.240 --> 00:27:26.319
Most relevantly, an IJ denied, deeming it all merely a family dispute, albeit a very dangerous one.
00:27:26.720 --> 00:27:32.400
Corroboration issues too, and I'm skipping over quite a bit as it's not very relevant to the disposition.
00:27:32.640 --> 00:27:36.240
The BIA affirmed as did the First Circuit.
00:27:36.720 --> 00:27:44.000
Explains the court, quote, personal disputes are generally not enough to show the required nexus between past harm and a protected ground.
00:27:45.680 --> 00:27:50.559
Now true recognizes the First Circuit, and all but forgotten by the BIA these days.
00:27:50.799 --> 00:28:01.440
The INA and the regulations literally state that the testimony of a non-citizen, including an asylum seeker, may be sufficient for that non-citizen to obtain immigration relief.
00:28:02.079 --> 00:28:07.359
IJs just don't have to make that finding if they think corroborating evidence is necessary.
00:28:07.519 --> 00:28:11.599
And well, the BIA seems to believe that that is the case always these days.
00:28:11.920 --> 00:28:13.839
So who is an IJ to disagree?
00:28:14.640 --> 00:28:15.920
That's me on a tangent.
00:28:16.000 --> 00:28:18.960
There were actual issues identified by the IJ here.
00:28:19.680 --> 00:28:25.119
Now it's true, the IJ did hold that the harm suffered rose to the level of past persecution.
00:28:25.359 --> 00:28:29.440
But that doesn't mean past persecution, explains the First Circuit.
00:28:29.680 --> 00:28:32.640
You still need a nexus to a protected ground.
00:28:32.880 --> 00:28:38.400
Again, the court agrees that this looks more like a very dysfunctional family, rather than harm on account of Mr.
00:28:38.480 --> 00:28:41.920
Basquez Chavez being part of any particular social group.
00:28:42.160 --> 00:28:50.799
Not only that, but the First Circuit agrees with the IJ's denial based on a lack of corroborating evidence regarding whether the Salvadoran government was willing or able to protect Mr.
00:28:50.880 --> 00:28:53.119
Basquez Chavez from his father.
00:28:53.359 --> 00:28:56.640
That's where the corroboration was apparently needed.
00:28:57.039 --> 00:29:01.759
And it was needed in part because of apparent inconsistencies in the testimony to the IJ.
00:29:02.000 --> 00:29:10.240
So the IJ wanted corroborating evidence about how police were notified in the past and affidavits from other family members about what happened.
00:29:10.400 --> 00:29:12.559
None were apparently provided.
00:29:13.039 --> 00:29:18.720
Particularly given the standard of review, it was all affirmed by the First Circuit, which is why Mr.
00:29:18.799 --> 00:29:21.200
Vasquez Chavez lost his case.
00:29:21.920 --> 00:29:23.839
And that is Vasquez Chavez v.
00:29:23.920 --> 00:29:24.640
Blanche.
00:29:32.559 --> 00:29:34.799
We conclude then with United States v.
00:29:34.880 --> 00:29:39.200
Pimental, published by the First Circuit on May 20th, 2026.
00:29:39.759 --> 00:29:46.000
This is a sentence enhancement case about quite a few things, but we'll skip to the part that matters for immigration purposes.
00:29:46.319 --> 00:29:55.119
Massachusetts carjacking in violation of Mass General Laws Chapter 265, Section 21A is not a sentence enhancement crime of violence.
00:29:55.599 --> 00:30:04.559
And because that crime of violence definition is materially identical to the immigration definition, I guess it's not an immigration crime of violence aggravated felony either.
00:30:04.799 --> 00:30:23.680
The Massachusetts statute reads as follows Quote Whoever with the intent to steal a motor vehicle assaults, confines, maims, or puts any person in fear for the purpose of stealing a motor vehicle shall, whether he succeeds or fails in the perpetration of stealing the motor vehicle, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
00:30:24.000 --> 00:30:24.960
End quote.
00:30:25.519 --> 00:30:30.720
Now, right off the bat, that intent to steal thing very well might make it an aggravated felony theft offense.
00:30:30.880 --> 00:30:37.359
But I don't think such things exist in the sentence enhancement world, and who am I to make such anti-immigrant arguments?
00:30:37.599 --> 00:30:40.000
Let's focus on the analysis at hand.
00:30:40.400 --> 00:30:47.440
It's not a crime of violence because the categorical approach to criminal statute interpretation requires a focus on the least culpable conduct.
00:30:47.599 --> 00:30:52.720
In the first circuit, or at least to this panel, non-citizens must satisfy the realistic probability test every time.
00:30:52.880 --> 00:31:00.079
There must be a realistic probability that a statute would apply to conduct that falls outside the generic federal definition that we're trying to match to.
00:31:00.240 --> 00:31:02.720
Here, sentence enhancement crime of violence.
00:31:02.960 --> 00:31:10.000
It's just that in the first circuit, explains the court, the plain text of the state crime can satisfy the realistic probability test.
00:31:10.960 --> 00:31:18.000
The government conceded here that the statute is not divisible into separate crimes, so the whole thing is a crime of violence, or none of it is.
00:31:18.720 --> 00:31:30.400
As to the elements of the offense, quote, a defendant one, with intent to steal a motor vehicle, two, assaults, confines, maims, or puts any person in fear, three, for the purpose of stealing the motor vehicle.
00:31:30.559 --> 00:31:31.200
End quote.
00:31:31.440 --> 00:31:34.079
Those are the elements required to convict.
00:31:34.720 --> 00:31:44.000
And we're trying to match that up to the crime of violence definition, which requires, quote, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person, end quote.
00:31:44.319 --> 00:31:50.240
The immigration definition at the crime of violence provision adds property to the end of that definition, too.
00:31:50.880 --> 00:31:55.680
First Circuit case law explains the court equates assault with mere touching.
00:31:55.839 --> 00:31:59.200
And remember, assault is used in that Massachusetts definition.
00:31:59.680 --> 00:32:08.880
Now it's mere offensive touching to be specific, but that's not necessarily the degree of violent or physical force required of Supreme Court precedent to be a crime of violence.
00:32:09.039 --> 00:32:13.920
The force need not be the type that creates, quote, physical pain or injury, end quote.
00:32:14.240 --> 00:32:20.240
This despite Massachusetts case law recognizing that carjacking is an inherently violent offense.
00:32:20.400 --> 00:32:25.920
Quote, we must train our analysis on the statutory elements before us, end quote.
00:32:26.240 --> 00:32:33.279
Seems kind of like dicta anyway, from the Massachusetts courts to the First Circuit, or at least to me reading the First Circuit.
00:32:33.599 --> 00:32:39.920
Now, yes, when reading criminal statutes, explains the court, you need to read terms and context next to the other elements.
00:32:40.400 --> 00:32:48.319
So, like the case the First Circuit discusses where someone must assault with the intent to kill, well, that materially alters the word assault.
00:32:48.400 --> 00:32:51.119
That's a pretty high level of assault, right?
00:32:51.519 --> 00:32:56.079
But here you have to assault with the intent to permanently deprive someone of a car.
00:32:56.480 --> 00:33:00.960
Nothing necessarily violent about stealing, explains the First Circuit.
00:33:01.440 --> 00:33:08.240
So it seems to me that literally any Massachusetts crime that incorporates the word assault is not a crime of violence.
00:33:08.640 --> 00:33:10.319
But that's just little old me.
00:33:11.039 --> 00:33:14.640
Don't need to find an exemplar case prosecuting this, as the U.S.
00:33:14.720 --> 00:33:19.359
government was arguing, because again, the plain text of the statute wins the day.
00:33:19.920 --> 00:33:25.920
Be gone with that attempt to expand bad Fifth Circuit case law into New England, Department of Justice.
00:33:27.119 --> 00:33:28.799
So, surely a U.S.
00:33:28.960 --> 00:33:29.680
citizen, Mr.
00:33:29.759 --> 00:33:33.839
Pemintar is getting less time for his bank robbery conviction.
00:33:34.480 --> 00:33:38.079
He would have got more time if this carjacking conviction was a crime of violence.
00:33:38.480 --> 00:33:41.359
And that's all because the categorical approach is powerful.
00:33:41.599 --> 00:33:43.519
And because, never forget, U.S.
00:33:43.680 --> 00:33:47.599
citizens commit far more crimes in America than do non-citizens.
00:33:48.000 --> 00:33:53.119
For all of it, congratulations to Christine Damasso of the Federal Public Defenders.
00:33:54.480 --> 00:33:56.400
And that is United States E.
00:33:56.480 --> 00:33:57.359
Pimental.
00:34:02.240 --> 00:34:03.440
So there you have it.
00:34:03.599 --> 00:34:07.440
You're all caught up with the past week's published immigration cases.
00:34:07.680 --> 00:34:08.480
I'm Kevin A.
00:34:08.639 --> 00:34:16.239
Gregg, a partner with the law firm Kurzban, Kurzban, Titselli, and Pratt, and this has been another episode of Immigration Review.
00:34:16.480 --> 00:34:18.960
Thank you for listening and I hope you enjoyed it.
00:34:19.199 --> 00:34:22.719
If you did, please share it with a friend and rate and review us.
00:34:22.880 --> 00:34:25.920
Each review helps new listeners find the show.
00:34:26.239 --> 00:34:31.039
And of course, subscribe to Immigration Review wherever you get your podcasts.
00:34:31.599 --> 00:34:43.840
If you like what we do and want to become a patron of the show, please check out our Patreon page at www.patreon.com forward slash immigration review or click on the link in the show notes.
00:34:44.320 --> 00:34:56.559
And if you're interested in an official Immigration Review CLE certificate, email me at kgreg at kktplaw.com with your full name and the episode numbers for the 10 shows you've listened to.
00:34:57.039 --> 00:35:00.960
Also, feel free to email me with questions, comments, or anything at all.
00:35:01.119 --> 00:35:07.760
And follow the show on Instagram and Facebook at Immigration Review or send us a tweet at Imreview.
00:35:08.000 --> 00:35:10.239
That's IMM Review.
00:35:10.800 --> 00:35:13.840
And you know we're always interested in hearing listener feedback.
00:35:14.079 --> 00:35:18.639
Like this review about the episode you just listened to from my very young son.
00:35:18.880 --> 00:35:21.440
Son, how did you like that episode?
00:35:26.960 --> 00:35:27.840
Indeed.
00:35:28.079 --> 00:35:41.119
If you like my son, enjoyed what you just heard again, please give the Patreon page some love, feel free to review the pod, reach out to me with your own kind sounds, or do anything else nice that your heart desires.
00:35:41.840 --> 00:35:45.199
I'll be back next week for a brand new discussion.
00:35:45.440 --> 00:35:47.119
Until then, I'm Kevin A.
00:35:47.280 --> 00:35:50.559
Gregg, bringing you the Immigration Review!