Read case summaries of select BIA, Supreme Court, First and Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals cases issued this last month.
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
Matter of A-A-R- [CAT]
Matter of A-A-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 38 (BIA 2025) (Decided as amended April 24, 2025)
Holding:
Based on the facts and evidence in this case, the applicant, a former MS-13 gang member, has not met his burden to show he will more likely than not be tortured in El Salvador based on the government’s state of exception policy.
Matter of O-A-R-G- [PSG; CAT]
Matter of O-A-R-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 30 (BIA 2025) (Decided as amended April 16, 2025).
Holdings:
(1) Where a particular social group is defined by “former” status, Immigration Judges must ensure the persecutor’s conduct was based on a desire to overcome or animus toward the respondent’s membership in a group defined specifically by that former status, not retribution for conduct the respondent engaged in while a current member of the group.
(2) Acquiescence in the context of protection under the Convention Against Torture requires a greater degree of governmental complicity than is required to establish a government is unable or unwilling to protect a respondent in the asylum context.
Matter of Iskandarani [procedure; appeals]
Matter of Iskandarani, 29 I&N Dec. 26 (BIA 2025).
Holding:
When an Immigration Judge issues an oral decision, the 30-day appeal filing period is calculated from the date the decision is rendered and is unaffected by the subsequent mailing of a memorandum summarizing the oral decision.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
Abrego Garcia v. Noem, [executive power, U.S. constitution, removal to a third country]
Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-1404 (4th Cir. 04.17.2025).
Facts & Background
- This case arises out of the Trump Administration wrongfully sending a legal permanent resident to El Salvador without affording them with the proper due process and after incorrectly labelling them a terrorist and member of the MS-13 gang. The government is fighting a judicial order to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to the United States and afford him his due process rights. The Supreme Court ordered the government to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia, and the government filed a motion for an emergency stay pending appeal and for a writ of mandamus.
Notable Holdings & Rationale
- The court denied the motion. The decision is written by Judge Wilkinson, a Reagan appointed who has served on the Fourth Circuit since the 1980s. In addition to ordering the U.S. government to do more to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to the United States, the opinion contains some powerful commentary about the overall concerns facing the country and the need to uphold the constitution and the rule of law. While it is recommended to read the entire opinion (especially as it is not long), some notable parts are quoted below.
- "It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear."
- "The Executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with powers come restraints. If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?∗ And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed' would lose its meaning. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3; see also id. art. II, § 1, cl. 8."
- "Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions."
First Circuit Court of Appeals
Contreras v. Bondi [exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, cancellation of removal]
Contreras v. Bondi, No. 22-1538, 134 F.4th 12 (1st Cir. 04.09, 2025).
Facts & Background
- Mr. Contreras is from Guatemala and entered the United States without inspection in 2001. He was later joined by his partner, Ms. Lopez, and the two have been together in the United States for about 25 years and have two children who are U.S. citizens. They received Notices to Appears after filing for asylum and withholding for removal in 2013 and failing to appear at their scheduled interviews. They conceded removability and initially stated their intent to seek voluntary departure, withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal, but clarified at a hearing in 2019 that they were only seeking cancellation of removal.
The key issue before the immigration judge (IJ) was whether they could satisfy the "exception and extremely unusual hardship" requirement to obtain relief, as they were otherwise eligible and the IJ indicated at the hearing that they were entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion. However, the IJ denied relief based on findings that their children would not experience exceptional and unusual hardship due to their parents' removal. The BIA affirmed.
Notable Holdings & Rationale
- The First Circuit determined that it had jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination about exceptional and unusual hardship and granted the petition, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded for further proceedings.
- The decision relied heavily on the failure to consider critical portions of a 2018 psychological report presented as evidence. The First Circuit explained that
"[b]ecause the fact-intensive 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' inquiry presents such a high bar, it is vital that due consideration be given to salient record evidence in this context." Thus, they concluded that "the BIA did not address and contend with significant record evidence in reviewing the IJ's factual findings for clear error and thus its decision was flawed as a matter of law." In doing so, the federal court clarified that "[i]n reaching this conclusion, we are by no means substituting our judgment for the agency's on the issue of A.B.M.'s medical condition." But the holding emphasized the need for the BIA to address all the primary evidence.
Supreme Court
A.A.R.P. v. Trump [Alien Enemies Act]
A.A.R.P. v. Trump, Case No. 24A1007 (Apr. 19, 2025).
Facts & Background
- An application was submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of a putative class of detainees seeking an injunction against their removal under the Alien Enemies Act.
Notable Holdings & Rationale
- The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.
Noem v. Abrego Garcia [erroneous removal]
Noem v. Abrego Garcia, Case No. 24A949 (Apr. 7, 2025).
Facts & Background
- Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should vacate U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis’s order to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States.
Notable Holdings & Rationale
- On April 7, 2025, the Supreme Court entered an order: Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants, it is ordered that the April 4, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, case No. 8:25-cv-951, is hereby stayed pending further order of The Chief Justice or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Tuesday, April 8th, 2025, by 5 p.m.
- Response brief was filed by Abrego Garcia on April 7.
- On April 10, 2024, the Supreme Court vacated the 4/7 order and entered a new order:
- The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by The Chief Justice, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.
Trump v. J.G.G. [Alien Enemies Act]
Trump v. J.G.G., Case No. 24A931 (Apr. 7, 2025).
Facts & Background
- Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should vacate the district court's order blocking the Trump administration from summary removal under the Alien Enemies Act.
Notable Holdings & Rationale
- Emergency application to vacate order was granted on April 7, 2025. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson dissenting.