Mar 4 2026
3rd Cir. 25-1594 Panel Decision

ANIBAL YOBANI SICAL-TOJ v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding of removal because the petitioner failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. The court held that the proposed group definition was impermissibly defined by the persecution itself and lacked the requisite social distinctness under prevailing precedent.

Mar 4 2026
U.S. Sup. Ct. 24-777 Unanimous

Urias-Orellana v. Bondi

The Supreme Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act mandates substantial-evidence review for the Board of Immigration Appeals' determinations regarding whether undisputed facts constitute persecution. The Court affirmed the First Circuit's removal order, ruling that the record did not compel a finding of persecution under this deferential standard.

Mar 3 2026
3rd Cir. 25-1522 Panel Decision

SAMUEL CARDENAS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Third Circuit clarified that battered child relief is available if the abuser becomes a lawful permanent resident after the abuse occurs, rejecting a prior Board of Immigration Appeals interpretation. However, the court affirmed the denial of standard cancellation of removal because the record supports the finding that the petitioner's mother would not suffer exceptional hardship.

Mar 3 2026
6th Cir. 25-3631 Published

AMADOU SY v. PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General

The Sixth Circuit denied Amadou Sy's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision, upholding the finding that his testimony regarding alleged persecution in Mauritania lacked credibility. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the immigration judge's determination that Sy's accounts of repeated arrests were strikingly similar and implausible.

Mar 3 2026
3rd Cir. 25-1814 Panel Decision

Walter Gustavo Suarez Juarez; Ana Lucia Jara Montoya; A. B. S. J.; X. V. S.J.; G. A. S.J v. Attorney General United States of America

The Third Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that rejected an asylum claim based on a lack of nexus between the petitioner's harm and his status as a cooperating witness. The court upheld the finding that the petitioner was targeted for financial extortion rather than because of his membership in a particular social group.

Mar 3 2026
9th Cir. 25-851 Unpublished

Maria Magdalena Perez De Lopez; Jose Noel Lopez Perez v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief to two Salvadoran nationals. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's findings that the petitioners failed to prove past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, or eligibility under a cognizable particular social group.

Mar 2 2026
3rd Cir. 25-1662 Panel Decision

SELASSIE ATOKLO v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Third Circuit denied a petition for review seeking withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture protection for a Ghanaian national convicted of federal fraud and money laundering crimes. The court upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals' finding that the petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence that he faced a clear probability of future persecution or torture upon return to Ghana.

Mar 2 2026
9th Cir. 18-70983 Unpublished

Gonzalo Chavez Esquivel v. Pamela Bondi

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of an immigration order, upholding the agency's finding that the petitioner's proposed social group lacked the required particularity and social distinction. The court also affirmed the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture, though a judge dissented on the grounds that the agency failed to properly consider evidence of torture risk.

Mar 2 2026
9th Cir. 23-963 Unpublished

RAMON SOLANO-TENORIO v. PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of cancellation of removal and voluntary departure, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the petitioner's wife did not face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The court further ruled that the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying voluntary departure given the petitioner's significant criminal history.