Introduction In Matter of C-P-Y, 29 I&N Dec. 610 (BIA 2026), the Board of Immigration Appeals addressed an issue of first impression involving the interpretation of the serious nonpolitical crime bars under INA §§ 208(b)(2)(A)(iii) and 241(b)(3)(B)(iii). Specifically, the Board examined whether the statutory terms “arrival” and “arrived” should be interpreted as synonymous with “admission” or “admitted” as defined under INA § 101(a)(13)(A). The Board ultimately rejected that

The decision in Matter of Orozco Becerra provides a precise articulation of how in absentia removal orders operate under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Board of Immigration Appeals confirms that when the statutory requirements are satisfied, the Immigration Judge is required to enter a removal order. Two principles emerge with clarity. First, Immigration Judges do not retain discretion to decline or delay the entry of an in absentia order once the statutory elements

The Decision in Context In Matter of D-G-E-A- & N-G-G-E-, the Board of Immigration Appeals revisits a familiar principle: opposition to criminal gangs, standing alone, does not qualify as a political opinion under the Immigration and Nationality Act. That rule has been in place for years. What stands out in this decision is the way the Board applies it, leaving very little room for flexibility in cases that fall outside clearly defined political activity. The opinion fits wit

A Critical Analysis of Matter of A-M-F-Z-, 29 I&N Dec. 551 (BIA 2026) from the Perspective of a Former DHS Prosecutor and Immigration Litigator. In adversarial proceedings, the right to be heard does not end with the presentation of evidence. It includes the opportunity to interpret that evidence, apply the governing law, and articulate why the legal standard has been met or not met. That function is performed through closing argument. In Matter of A-M-F-Z-, decided on Apri