Legal Updates

EOIR BIA Decision

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of VIZCAINO AYBAR, 29 I&N Dec. 736 (BIA 2026).

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(c)(1), the proper venue for a respondent’s request for bond redetermination is the Immigration Court having jurisdiction over the respondent’s place of detention.

EOIR BIA Decision

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of T-D-E-, 29 I&N Dec. 732 (BIA 2026).

An Immigration Judge may not determine that a respondent is credible solely because the respondent was candid in admitting he previously lied to obtain immigration benefits.

EOIR BIA Decision

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of G-L-C-, 29 I&N Dec. 717 (BIA 2026).

(1)      The respondent’s conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance in violation of title 35, section 780-113(a)(30) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes is for a particularly serious crime rendering her statutorily ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal.

(2)      The respondent did not establish eligibility for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture where past mistreatment in Jamaica based on her sexual orientation was inflicted by private individuals and she did not demonstrate that a public official would likely acquiesce to any torture.

EOIR BIA Decision

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of BEST, 29 I&N Dec. 723 (BIA 2026).

The Immigration Judge erred in granting a waiver of inadmissibility and adjustment of status in discretion because the respondent’s equities were outweighed by his serious and lengthy criminal history and lack of persuasive evidence of rehabilitation.

EOIR BIA Decision

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of C-L-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 726 (BIA 2026).

(1)      The applicant, who was found incompetent for purposes of his withholding-only proceedings and was appointed a qualified representative who submitted filings on his behalf, was provided with adequate safeguards to ensure the fairness of his proceedings.

(2)      The Immigration Judge properly concluded that the applicant did not establish a clear probability of future persecution on account of his membership in a mental health-based particular social group because the evidence in the record did not establish a particularized risk of future persecution.