The Floor Drops Out — Three Rulings in Thirty Days Dismantle the Deferred Action Safety Net for SIJ and DACA Recipients

Posted on May 9, 2026 by Mike Baker

⚖️ Multi-Decision Alert — BIA & USCIS — April–May 2026

Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026) |
Matter of C-P-Y-, 29 I&N Dec. 610 (BIA 2026) |
USCIS PM-602-0198 (Apr. 10, 2026)

Thirty days. Three rulings. The floor drops out from under an entire generation of young immigrants who did everything the government asked them to do.

In April and May 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services moved — simultaneously, in separate legal theaters — to dismantle the deferred action framework that has been the last line of defense for hundreds of thousands of Special Immigrant Juveniles and DACA recipients. The BIA ruled in Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026), that DACA doesn’t stop the clock in removal proceedings. The BIA ruled in Matter of C-P-Y-, 29 I&N Dec. 610 (BIA 2026), that a crime committed abroad attaches to your most recent arrival — not your first — meaning a green card and years of law-abiding residence don’t wash the slate clean. And USCIS issued PM-602-0198 on April 10, 2026, cutting off automatic deferred action for Special Immigrant Juveniles waiting for visa backlogs to clear. The squeeze comes from every direction at once. This post explains what it means.

👤 The Human Story: Diego Hernandez Garcia, Maryville, Tennessee

The Face Behind the Framework

Diego Hernandez Garcia, 24, graduated from Maryville High School. He came to the United States from El Salvador at age 14, with his mother, without inspection. A removal order followed in 2016 — issued in absentia, before he had a lawyer, when he was a teenager. He did what the system told him to do: in 2019, he applied for Special Immigrant Juvenile classification. It was granted. In 2022, USCIS amended that approval and gave him deferred action through May 12, 2026. No criminal record. A church member. A construction worker. A man who, by every account, followed every rule, filed every form, and trusted the government to honor what it gave him.

On December 11, 2025, ICE raided a Hardin Valley construction site. Officers told him he had a removal order. His attorney told them he had deferred action. The officer said the two agencies were “at odds against each other.” They took him anyway. USCIS stripped his deferred action status the same day — the government later acknowledged the revocation likely came after the handcuffs were on. On December 23, ICE put him on a plane to El Salvador in direct violation of a federal court order. The government called it “inadvertent.” He was brought back hours later.

In May 2026, U.S. District Judge Clifton Corker denied his habeas corpus petition. Deferred action, the court held, is a discretionary benefit. It is not a constitutionally protected interest. The Fifth Amendment does not require a hearing before it is revoked. The 2016 removal order — the one issued when he was a child who had no lawyer — still stands. The stay was lifted. The case was dismissed. His attorney, Rachel Bonano, said they were evaluating options for appeal.

Diego Hernandez Garcia is not an abstraction. He is what these three rulings look like in the real world.

📐 The Three-Way Squeeze

These rulings don’t operate independently. They form interlocking walls. Here is what each one does:

USCIS — April 10, 2026

PM-602-0198 — SIJ Deferred Action

Automatic deferred action for Special Immigrant Juveniles is eliminated as of May 10, 2026. Approval of an I-360 no longer triggers consideration of deferred action. Future SIJs get no work authorization and no protection from removal without an individual request — evaluated case by case.

BIA — April 24, 2026

Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589

DACA status alone cannot terminate removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge must weigh DHS opposition and the public interest in finality. Deferred action opens the door to a discretionary motion — it doesn’t grant one.

BIA — May 2026

Matter of C-P-Y-, 29 I&N Dec. 610

The serious nonpolitical crime bar in INA §§ 208(b)(2)(A)(iii) and 241(b)(3)(B)(iii) attaches to the alien’s most recent arrival in the United States. A green card is no shield. Travel abroad and return, and the bar bites again on whatever you did before you came back.

⚖️ Ruling One: DACA Doesn’t Close the Courtroom

Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026)

DACA status is the starting line for a discretionary termination motion — not the finish line.

The Immigration Judge terminated Catalina Santiago-Santiago’s removal proceedings because she had valid DACA protection. Full stop. No analysis. No engagement with DHS’s opposition. No acknowledgment that DHS’s interest in litigating a case to a merits decision counts for anything.

The BIA reviewed de novo under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2026) and reversed. The governing regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(C), permits discretionary termination for deferred action beneficiaries — but the same sentence requires the IJ to consider “the reason termination is sought and the basis for any opposition to termination.” The judge read one clause and skipped the other. That is not a discretionary decision. It is a refusal to exercise discretion at all.

The Board cited its own line of cases — Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017); Matter of Cahuec Tzalam, 29 I&N Dec. 300 (BIA 2025); Matter of B-N-K-, 29 I&N Dec. 96 (BIA 2025) — establishing that DHS has a cognizable interest in litigating to a conclusion and that the public has an independent interest in the finality of immigration proceedings. An IJ who ignores both interests has not exercised judgment. He has issued a result.

The Board also ordered reassignment to a new Immigration Judge. The original judge’s spouse — a member of the United States House of Representatives — had publicly advocated on social media specifically for the respondent while the case was pending. The Board held that the appearance of partiality alone, without proof of actual bias or actual judicial knowledge, was sufficient to require reassignment.

📄 Ruling Two: The Pipeline for SIJ Deferred Action Is Cut Off

USCIS PM-602-0198 — Effective May 10, 2026

The 2022 policy automatically granting deferred action to approved SIJs is eliminated. What replaced it: nothing automatic. A discretionary, case-by-case request process with no guarantee of approval.

Here is how the SIJ pipeline worked before PM-602-0198: A child — a minor who suffered abuse, neglect, or abandonment — petitioned for Special Immigrant Juvenile classification under INA § 101(a)(27)(J). USCIS adjudicated the Form I-360. If approved, the agency automatically considered deferred action, which gave the young person the ability to remain in the United States and obtain work authorization while waiting for a visa number to become available. That wait can stretch beyond a decade. For El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras nationals, the backlog is severe.

USCIS tried to rescind this policy on June 6, 2025. A federal district court in the Eastern District of New York stayed the rescission in A.C.R. v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-03962, finding USCIS had not adequately addressed reliance interests. USCIS went back, performed a new analysis, and issued PM-602-0198 on April 10, 2026 — this time with a 30-day notice period and a reliance interest analysis that concluded government interests outweigh the interests of the affected population.

The government’s justification: a July 2025 USCIS report identified national security and program integrity concerns — hundreds of gang members and known criminal actors who had filed SIJ petitions. The report found over 600 MS-13 members had filed, more than 500 were approved, and dozens had been charged with violent crimes. USCIS concluded automatic deferred action for a large population, without biometric background checks or individualized vetting, created unacceptable risk.

What the memo does not acknowledge: the vast majority of the tens of thousands of SIJ holders are exactly what the program was designed to protect — children who were abused, abandoned, or neglected, who came to the United States, followed the process, and are waiting in a decade-long backlog for a visa number that moves by fractions of a month per year. PM-602-0198 treats them all as a risk to be managed rather than a population to be protected.

⚖️ Ruling Three: The Crime Bar Bites Your Most Recent Arrival

Matter of C-P-Y-, 29 I&N Dec. 610 (BIA 2026)

The words “arrival” and “arrived” in the serious nonpolitical crime bar mean the alien’s most recent arrival in the United States — not the first.

The serious nonpolitical crime bars in INA § 208(b)(2)(A)(iii) and § 241(b)(3)(B)(iii) cut off asylum and withholding of removal for aliens who committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States “prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States.” The question in C-P-Y-: which arrival?

The respondent argued that “arrival” meant initial admission — that once he entered the country, obtained lawful permanent residence, and re-entered after travel abroad, the crime he committed before his first entry could no longer be counted against him on a subsequent application for protection. The BIA said no. “Arrival” carries its ordinary meaning — the act of arriving. The most recent coming or crossing into the United States from outside the country. The Board found this interpretation consistent with the one-year asylum filing deadline’s reference to “last arrival” in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2)(ii), and consistent with the purpose of the bar: protecting the receiving community from individuals who committed serious crimes.

The practical consequence: an LPR who travels abroad and re-enters the United States cannot use the lawful permanent residence or the re-entry as a reset button on the serious nonpolitical crime bar. The bar applies as of the most recent return. A green card is no shield. Neither is a decade of law-abiding residence in the United States. If there are serious reasons to believe a qualifying crime occurred outside the country before that most recent return — probable cause, which the Board has consistently defined as a low threshold — asylum and withholding are off the table.

🎯 What This Actually Does

The real-world rule, stated plainly: the three-legged stool that supported young undocumented immigrants — SIJ classification, deferred action, and removal protection — has had each leg kicked out in rapid succession.

Protection Layer	What Advocates Believed	What These Rulings Establish
Deferred Action (SIJ-based)	✓ I-360 approval → automatic deferred action consideration	✗ No automatic consideration after May 10, 2026. Case-by-case only.
DACA in Removal Proceedings	✓ Active DACA → IJ should terminate proceedings	✗ DACA opens the door to a motion. It doesn’t grant termination. DHS opposition must be weighed.
Deferred Action as Constitutional Right	✓ Due process requires notice and hearing before revocation	✗ Deferred action is discretionary. No protected interest. No hearing required. (Hernandez Garcia, E.D. Tenn. 2026)
Withholding After LPR Re-entry	✓ Green card + re-entry resets the serious nonpolitical crime clock	✗ Most recent arrival controls. LPR status provides no reset. Bar still applies.
SIJ Classification Pending Visa	✓ Approved I-360 = protection from removal while waiting in backlog	✗ Approved I-360 conveys no status, no lawful presence, no employment authorization without separate deferred action grant.

🔍 The Fatal Flaws in This Framework

Analysis

USCIS’s reliance interest analysis is structurally dishonest.
PM-602-0198 acknowledges that some SIJ petitioners submitted their Form I-360 specifically because they expected deferred action to follow. Then it dismisses that reliance with 30 days’ notice and a declaration that government interests outweigh theirs. For a population that cannot file Form I-485 because visa numbers are unavailable for five to ten years — a delay that is itself a product of congressional inaction, not the individual’s failure — a 30-day transition window is not a serious engagement with reliance interests. It is a legal formality dressed up as fairness.
The gang statistics do not justify the breadth of the policy change.
USCIS’s July 2025 report found concerning numbers — MS-13 members, violent offenders — among the 300,000-plus SIJ petitioners reviewed. But 600 MS-13 members out of a population that large is a fraction of a percent. The policy response eliminates automatic protection for the entire population based on the conduct of a tiny minority. The biometrics problem USCIS identified — that I-360 adjudications don’t require biometric background checks — has a targeted solution: require biometrics for deferred action consideration. USCIS evaluated that alternative and rejected it, primarily because it would cost money. The administration chose policy convenience over proportionality.
The C-P-Y- “most recent arrival” rule creates a trap for LPRs who travel.
Lawful permanent residents routinely travel abroad. Many do so for family emergencies, work, and entirely ordinary reasons. Under C-P-Y-, each return to the United States from a trip abroad resets the “arrival” clock for serious nonpolitical crime bar purposes. An LPR who committed a qualifying offense as a teenager abroad, obtained a green card a decade later, and has since traveled internationally is, on each return, freshly exposed to a bar they had reason to believe was resolved. The Board’s textualist rationale is defensible. The practical consequence — particularly for immigrant communities from countries where gang recruitment and coerced criminal activity are endemic — is brutal.
The Hernandez Garcia case exposes the ICE-USCIS coordination problem — and no ruling addresses it.
ICE detained Hernandez Garcia while his deferred action was valid. USCIS revoked the deferred action after he was already in custody. The federal court ruled this sequence was constitutional because deferred action is discretionary and creates no protected interest. But nobody has answered the structural question: what stops ICE from using detention as the trigger for USCIS revocation, transforming every encounter with law enforcement into a de facto removal mechanism, regardless of what the individual’s paperwork says? The Hernandez Garcia case surfaced this in the most public way possible. The courts have so far declined to close the door.

🧑‍⚖️ Practice Advisory: What This Means for Your Clients

SIJ Clients — Immediate

If your client has a pending or recently approved I-360 and has not yet received deferred action, act now. Petitions filed before May 10, 2026 are subject to the 2022 policy PM-602-0198 terminates. For clients who missed that window, begin building an individualized deferred action request on Form G-325A. Document the totality of the circumstances: abuse or neglect history, community ties, length of residence, absence of criminal history, ongoing state court proceedings, adjustment pathway, and any urgent humanitarian factors. A skeletal request will fail. Treat it like a brief.

DACA Clients in Removal Proceedings

After Santiago-Santiago, a motion to terminate on DACA grounds that does not engage DHS’s opposition is a motion waiting to be appealed. File the I-130 before the hearing wherever possible. Address the public interest in finality under Matter of W-Y-U- head-on in the motion itself — acknowledge the government’s interest, then distinguish your client’s facts. Build the equities record before the hearing: time in the US, family ties, employment history, community engagement, USC spouse and children, tax compliance. Give the IJ the analysis the regulation requires.

LPR Clients With Pre-Entry Criminal History

After C-P-Y-, advise any LPR client with a pre-entry criminal history — particularly conduct that could qualify as a serious nonpolitical crime — before they travel internationally. Each return to the United States triggers a new “arrival” under the bar. Clients who plan to apply for naturalization, renew travel documents, or who face any future enforcement action need a clear-eyed assessment of whether qualifying conduct could be used against them on a subsequent protection claim. The green card provides no reset. The analysis must happen before the trip, not after the return.

⚠️ ICE Encounter Protocol — All Deferred Action Clients

The Hernandez Garcia sequence — detention, then same-day revocation — is not an isolated incident. It is a documented enforcement pattern. Every client with SIJ deferred action or DACA should have an ICE encounter protocol in place before they need it: a wallet card with attorney contact information, a family emergency contact plan, a copy of their approval notice accessible to someone who can act immediately. The federal courts have now held that once ICE has a client in custody, revocation without a hearing is constitutional. The window to prevent detention is before the encounter, not after.

✅ What To Do Now

Concrete Steps — In Order of Urgency

Identify every SIJ client with a pending or approved I-360 who does not yet have deferred action. Build individualized G-325A requests now. The 2022 policy no longer applies to new filings after May 10, 2026.
Audit every pending motion to terminate filed for a DACA client. If the motion doesn’t address DHS’s opposition and the public interest in finality under Matter of W-Y-U-, supplement before the hearing.
For SIJ clients already holding deferred action that will expire: begin renewal preparation immediately. USCIS retains discretion to deny renewal. Build the humanitarian record now, not at the deadline.
For any LPR client with pre-entry criminal history who travels internationally: conduct a C-P-Y- analysis before the trip. Document the analysis in the file. If the risk is real, advise against travel until the exposure is resolved.
Establish ICE encounter protocols for all deferred action clients: written emergency contact card, copy of approval notice with a trusted contact, attorney contact information physically on the client’s person.
Monitor A.C.R. v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-03962 (E.D.N.Y.), for any injunction against PM-602-0198. The same court that stayed the June 2025 rescission may act again on the April 2026 memo.
Monitor the Hernandez Garcia appeal. If the Sixth Circuit takes up whether ICE can trigger USCIS revocation through detention, that ruling will matter for every deferred action client in the circuit.

🔚 Conclusion

The government built a legal structure and told a generation of young immigrants: follow the rules, file the forms, wait your turn, and you will be protected. They followed the rules. They filed the forms. They are still waiting in backlogs that move by weeks per year. And in thirty days, three simultaneous moves dismantled the framework those assurances were built on.

Santiago-Santiago says deferred action doesn’t close the courtroom. PM-602-0198 says future SIJs won’t receive deferred action automatically to begin with. C-P-Y- says a green card doesn’t reset the serious nonpolitical crime clock. And a federal court in Tennessee said that when ICE arrests a man with valid deferred action and USCIS strips it from him in real time, the Constitution was not violated. Diego Hernandez Garcia is still fighting. His case is not over. But the legal landscape that surrounded him when he went to work that December morning is not the one that exists today.

Every practitioner with clients in this population needs to know what changed, why it changed, and what the options are going forward. The window to protect these clients is narrow. Act now.

⚖️ The Bottom Line

Deferred action for young immigrants is under coordinated assault from three directions at once. The BIA closed the automatic termination route. USCIS cut the SIJ pipeline. A federal court said revocation without a hearing is constitutional. No single ruling is decisive. Together, they reshape the entire practice landscape. The advisories are not theoretical. The deadlines are not abstract. The clients are real people who trusted a system that is now being dismantled around them.

Disclaimer: This post is legal analysis and commentary for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law and policy are changing rapidly; consult qualified immigration counsel regarding specific circumstances.

📄 Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026)
📄 Matter of C-P-Y-, 29 I&N Dec. 610 (BIA 2026)
📋 USCIS PM-602-0198 — SIJ Deferred Action (Apr. 10, 2026)

🔄 Updates

May 9, 2026 — Initial Publication

Post published. Monitoring A.C.R. v. Noem (E.D.N.Y.) for injunction against PM-602-0198 and the Hernandez Garcia appeal for Sixth Circuit review of the ICE-detention-then-revocation sequence.

Posted in BIA, DACA, DACA Renewal, DACA Statistics, Special Immigrant Juveniles, USCIS Policy | Tagged BIA 2026, DACA, deferred action, Diego Hernandez Garcia, Form G-325A, habeas corpus, I-360, INA 208, INA 241, Matter of C-P-Y-, Matter of Santiago-Santiago, PM-602-0198, removal proceedings, serious nonpolitical crime bar, SIJ, USCIS 2026 | Leave a comment

BIA Kills “Married Mexican Women Unable to Leave” as a Cognizable Social Group in Matter of V-A-B- — And Reverses the IJ on Marriage, Government Protection, and Internal Relocation

Posted on May 8, 2026 by Mike Baker

⚖️ BIA Precedent Decision · May 8, 2026

BIA Kills “Married Mexican Women Unable to Leave” as a Cognizable Social Group in Matter of V-A-B- — And Reverses the IJ on Marriage, Government Protection, and Internal Relocation

Decision

Matter of V-A-B-, 29 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2026)

Decided: May 8, 2026 | Citation: Interim Decision #4192

Panel: Hunsucker, Gemoets, and Chaban, Appellate Immigration Judges

Disposition: DHS appeal sustained; withholding grant vacated; remanded for CAT adjudication

The Bottom Line

The BIA handed DHS a clean sweep in Matter of V-A-B-. The social group failed. The marriage finding failed. The government-protection finding failed. The internal-relocation finding failed. A woman who lived in the United States for over two decades goes back to immigration court—this time for a CAT hearing that nobody has analyzed yet.

Introduction

The Board of Immigration Appeals decided Matter of V-A-B-, 29 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2026) on May 8, 2026, issuing a precedent decision that dismantles one of the most-litigated domestic violence social groups in immigration courts and rewrites the evidentiary ground rules for three core questions: what makes a proposed particular social group cognizable, how marriage status must be proven, and what it actually takes to show a government is unable or unwilling to protect you. The Immigration Judge granted withholding of removal twice. The Board reversed both findings and vacated the grant entirely.

This decision lands in a legal environment shaped by Matter of S-S-F-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 207 (A.G. 2025), which reinstated Matter of A-B- I, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) and Matter of A-B- II, 28 I&N Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021). V-A-B- applies that framework with precision—and without mercy. Every practitioner handling domestic violence-based claims from Mexican nationals, and many others, needs to read this decision before their next filing.

🧍 The Facts

She came to the United States as a teenager. The applicant, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the country in 1994, then twice again in 2000, and stayed. She had seven children with the man who would become her husband. She alleges the abuse began when she was 17 years old—one year into the relationship—in Mexico. She says she never reported it to Mexican authorities because her former husband’s family, the Los Gonzalez organized crime family, was connected to local law enforcement. She feared they would kill her if she returned.

The formal marriage ceremony in the United States happened on October 24, 2016. Before that, the Immigration Judge found they had been in a common-law marriage while residing together in Mexico. The IJ granted withholding on January 7, 2025. The Board remanded in June 2025, directing the IJ to reexamine the Mexico-based persecution and the marriage question. The IJ granted again on August 19, 2025. The Board reversed.

Procedural Timeline

Jan. 7, 2025: IJ grants withholding under INA § 241(b)(3)(A).
June 6, 2025: BIA remands — directs IJ to address Mexico persecution and common-law marriage.
Aug. 19, 2025: IJ grants withholding again on remand.
May 8, 2026: BIA reverses. Withholding vacated. CAT remanded.

⚖️ The Ruling

Holding One: The Social Group Is Circular and Lacks Particularity

The applicant’s proposed particular social group—”married Mexican women who are unable to leave their relationship”—is not cognizable under the INA. The Board’s analysis is direct: the group is defined by the very harm it claims to fear. The “inability to leave” is the persecution. A group cannot rest its existence on the persecution it claims to suffer. It must exist independently of the harm.

The Circularity Problem

Under Matter of A-B- I, 27 I&N Dec. at 334–35, and Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1309–10 (11th Cir. 2019), a proposed social group is impermissibly circular when it is “defined in large measure by the risk of persecution.” The group “married Mexican women unable to leave their relationship” does not exist independently of the harm asserted—because the inability to leave was created by the harm or threatened harm. The INA requires more.

The IJ had relied on Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), which recognized “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.” That precedent is gone. The Attorney General overruled A-R-C-G- in Matter of S-S-F-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 207 (A.G. 2025), reinstating Matter of A-B- I and Matter of A-B- II. The IJ who relied on A-R-C-G- was applying dead law.

The Board also rejected the applicant’s argument that Matter of A-B- I should not apply retroactively. The Attorney General’s decision was a clarification of existing standards—not an abrupt departure. The long-standing requirement that applicants articulate a cognizable PSG did not change. The argument failed.

Finally, the applicant argued that immutability alone is enough to establish a cognizable group, citing Perez-Zenteno. Wrong reading of that case. Perez-Zenteno actually affirmed the Board’s holding that even where immutability and particularity were satisfied, the applicant failed to establish social distinction within Mexican society. Under Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), a PSG requires: (1) a common immutable characteristic, (2) particularity, and (3) social distinction in the society in question. Immutability alone gets you nowhere.

Holding Two: Marriage Cannot Be Presumed from Cohabitation or Children

Even if the social group were cognizable, the IJ’s membership analysis was insufficient. The IJ concluded the applicant was in a common-law marriage in Mexico based on the fact that the couple lived together for decades and had seven children. The Board rejected that reasoning entirely.

The Legal Standard

“The legal validity of a marriage is generally determined by the law of the place of the celebration.” Matter of Da Silva, 15 I&N Dec. 778, 779 (BIA 1976). The IJ must determine: (1) the place of the alleged marriage, (2) the date of the alleged marriage, and (3) the applicable law at that time and place. Then the IJ must analyze whether the applicant was actually married under that law. Cohabitation and shared children are not a substitute for that analysis.

Holdings Three and Four: Government Protection and Internal Relocation — Both Clearly Erroneous

The Board found the IJ clearly erred on both remaining questions.

On government protection: The IJ relied on the applicant’s claim that her former husband belonged to the Los Gonzalez crime family with law enforcement connections. The Board called this speculative—no credible evidence supported it. More critically, the State Department country report showed Mexico investigates, prosecutes, punishes, and imprisons domestic abusers. The applicant also never reported the abuse to Mexican authorities. Under Matter of C-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 740, 743–44 (BIA 2023) and Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1341, 1345 (11th Cir. 2007), a failure to report—even based on a subjective belief authorities won’t help—is insufficient to show the government is unable or unwilling to act.

On internal relocation: The IJ found relocation unreasonable given the applicant’s lack of education, illiteracy, inability to drive, and lack of consistent employment. The Board reversed on every factual point. The applicant testified she owns a car and drives. She sells lunches to earn income in the United States. Her applications for relief list self-employment in babysitting, agriculture, and cooking. Her former husband has been in the United States for more than three years—there is no evidence he could locate her across Mexico. No evidence showed she was denied or would be denied help from family, friends, law enforcement, or domestic violence organizations.

📊 What This Actually Does

After V-A-B-, a domestic violence-based PSG claim from Mexico requires independently-defined group characteristics, legally proven marriage status, reported persecution or proven futility, and a country-wide threat analysis before internal relocation becomes unreasonable.

Issue	What the IJ Did	What the BIA Required	Result
PSG Definition	Relied on A-R-C-G-; accepted group defined by inability to leave	Group must exist independently of harm; must have particularity and social distinction	Reversed
Marriage Proof	Inferred common-law marriage from cohabitation and children	Must analyze law of place/time of alleged marriage; cohabitation insufficient	Reversed
Gov’t Protection	Credited crime family connections; accepted applicant’s failure to report	Requires credible evidence; failure to report = failure to establish gov’t unwillingness	Reversed
Internal Relocation	Found unreasonable based on lack of education, driving ability, employment	Applicant’s own testimony refuted the findings; no evidence of country-wide threat	Reversed
CAT Protection	Denied as moot after granting withholding	Must be adjudicated; remanded for full consideration	Remanded

🔍 The Fatal Flaws

The IJ Applied Overruled Precedent
The IJ granted withholding twice by relying on Matter of A-R-C-G-. That decision was overruled by Matter of S-S-F-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 207 (A.G. 2025), before the second grant on August 19, 2025. The IJ applied dead law on remand—after the BIA had already flagged the need to address PSG cognizability. This is the core failure. The IJ had a second bite and missed the same mark.
The Marriage Finding Was Legally Naked
The IJ declared a common-law marriage existed in Mexico without citing a single provision of Mexican law. No analysis of which Mexican state’s law applied. No determination of the date of the alleged marriage. No examination of whether Mexico recognized common-law marriage at the relevant time and place. Under Matter of Da Silva, 15 I&N Dec. at 779, this is black-letter error. The IJ built a PSG membership finding on a factual foundation that had no legal mortar.
The Government Protection Analysis Was Speculative
Connecting a former husband to an organized crime family with law enforcement ties is an allegation, not a finding—unless it is supported by evidence. The applicant provided no credible evidence of those connections. The IJ treated testimony as proof. The State Department country report, which is in the record and shows Mexico prosecutes domestic abusers, was never reconciled with the IJ’s finding. That is the definition of clearly erroneous: a finding unsupported by evidence and contradicted by record evidence.
The Internal Relocation Ruling Contradicted the Applicant’s Own Testimony
The IJ found the applicant could not drive. She testified she owns a car. The IJ found she had no employment history. Her applications listed three occupations. The IJ found relocation unreasonable—without citing a single piece of evidence showing the applicant sought and was denied assistance. This is not a close call. The IJ’s factual findings were refuted by the applicant’s own record testimony.
CAT Was Left Undeveloped as a Fallback
The IJ denied CAT protection as moot after granting withholding. That is standard practice—but when withholding is a close call, you develop CAT in parallel. Here, the withholding grant was reversed and the case goes back on CAT alone. The record on CAT is thin. The parties now face a hearing on a theory that was never fully litigated. That is a real exposure for the applicant and a lesson for practitioners: build your CAT record as if withholding will fail, because it might.

📋 Practice Advisory

⚠️ PSG Construction After V-A-B-

Building a Cognizable Domestic Violence Social Group

Define the group by characteristics that exist before and independently of the harm — never by vulnerability to harm itself.
Satisfy all three M-E-V-G- prongs: immutability, particularity, and social distinction within the society in question. Immutability alone is insufficient.
Avoid any language in the group definition that restates the persecution (e.g., “unable to leave,” “who cannot escape,” “who are controlled by”).
Country condition evidence must establish that the defined group is recognized as a distinct group within the society — not just that domestic violence is widespread.
Consider gender-based groups defined by status and social perception rather than by the relationship to a persecutor.

📄 Marriage Proof Checklist

Establishing Lawful Marriage Under Da Silva

Identify the exact place and date of the alleged marriage — the specific state or municipality in Mexico.
Research and submit evidence of applicable marriage law at that time and place — including whether common-law marriage was recognized.
Do not rely on cohabitation duration or the number of children as a substitute for legal analysis.
If common-law marriage is claimed, submit expert testimony or legal analysis of the jurisdiction’s recognition requirements.
Address any formal marriage (including a U.S. marriage) and its relationship to the claimed Mexico marriage period and PSG membership.

🛡️ Government Protection — Evidence Requirements

Proving Unable or Unwilling Under Matter of C-G-T-

Document any attempt to report persecution to authorities — or affirmatively establish futility with concrete, specific evidence, not subjective belief.
If claiming corruption or organized crime connections, support with credible documentary evidence — not just client testimony.
Address State Department country reports directly; if the report shows prosecution of domestic abuse, distinguish your client’s situation with specific facts.
Focus on systemic failure in your client’s region, not isolated anecdotes — individual bad actors do not establish government-wide unwillingness to protect.

🗺️ Internal Relocation — Burden and Evidence

Defeating the Relocation Finding

Establish country-wide reach of the persecutor — geographic scope of the threat is the key variable.
Document your client’s actual limitations — do not allow the record to contain self-refuting testimony about skills and resources.
Submit evidence that the applicant sought or was denied assistance from family, friends, law enforcement, or NGOs — absence of this evidence is a gap DHS will exploit.
If the persecutor is a private actor (as here), A-B- I ‘s standard makes relocation easier to establish as reasonable — prepare accordingly.
When your client has been in the U.S. and separated from the persecutor, specifically address why the geographic separation does not resolve the threat upon return.

✅ What To Do Now

Audit every pending domestic violence PSG. If the proposed group is defined by inability to leave, vulnerability to persecution, or the persecutor’s control, revise it before your next hearing. That group will not survive V-A-B- review.
Build your marriage record legally, not factually. Cohabitation years and number of children are not marriage proof. Research the applicable foreign law, hire an expert if needed, and put the legal analysis in the record.
Document or explain every failure to report. If your client did not go to police, you need credible, specific evidence of why that would have been futile — not a generalized fear of corruption. Country reports, expert testimony, news articles about specific incidents of police non-response in the client’s region.
Map the persecutor’s actual reach. If the threat comes from one private individual, internal relocation becomes the government’s strongest card. Show the persecutor operates country-wide, or explain why relocation is specifically unreasonable for your client — with evidence, not assertion.
Develop your CAT claim in parallel, always. Do not wait for withholding to be denied. Build the record for acquiescence, government awareness, and likelihood of torture in the same evidentiary hearing. When the withholding grant disappears on appeal, your CAT claim should be fully litigated and ready.
Address Matter of S-S-F-M-, A-B- I, and A-B- II preemptively in briefs. Brief the current Attorney General framework directly. Do not wait for DHS to raise it. Show the IJ that your PSG satisfies the reinstated standards before the government attacks it.

Conclusion

Matter of V-A-B- is a clean, comprehensive loss for domestic violence claimants from Mexico who rely on relationship-status social groups. The Board reversed on every issue the IJ had decided. The social group died on circularity grounds. The marriage finding died for want of legal analysis. The government protection finding died as speculation. The internal relocation finding died contradicted by the applicant’s own testimony. This decision is now binding BIA precedent.

The only path that survives is CAT — and it now goes back to an immigration court where the record on CAT is thin and the government has all the momentum. Practitioners handling similar cases need to treat V-A-B- as the new baseline. The Board has told you exactly what it requires. Build records that meet it.

Watch for the Immigration Court’s CAT decision on remand. If the IJ finds for the applicant, this case will return to the BIA a third time. If not, it is a circuit court question — and in the Eleventh Circuit, the government will argue Perez-Zenteno and A-B- II with everything this precedent gave them.

📂 Primary Source

Matter of V-A-B-, 29 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2026) — Interim Decision #4192 — Decided May 8, 2026

📄 Download Decision PDF

Legal Disclaimer: This post is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law changes rapidly; confirm current standards with primary sources and consult qualified counsel before relying on any analysis here. Mike Baker Law, LLC — mikebakerlaw.com

🔄 Updates

Check back here for developments on the CAT remand, circuit court petitions for review, or subsequent BIA decisions applying V-A-B-.

Posted in CAT, domestic violence, internal relocation, Matter of A-B-, Matter of S-S-F-M, Mexico | Leave a comment

D.C. Circuit Kills Trump’s Border Invasion Removal Order in RAICES v. Mullin — Every Summary Deportation Without Asylum Review Violates Federal

Posted on April 30, 2026 by Mike Baker

BIA & Federal Courts
⚖️ D.C. Circuit · April 2026
📋 Case No. 25-5243

D.C. Circuit Kills Trump’s Border Invasion Removal Order in RAICES v. Mullin — Every Summary Deportation Without Asylum Review Violates Federal Law

Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, et al. v. Mullin
Case No. 25-5243 · U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit · 2026
📄 Read the Full Decision (PDF)

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proclamation 10888 and the DHS Guidance implementing it are unlawful — and that no presidential declaration of a border “invasion” can strip asylum seekers of their statutory rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court affirmed the district court’s permanent injunction and vacatur of the Guidance in full. The administration’s attempt to replace the INA’s mandatory removal procedures with summary deportation, without hearings, without asylum screenings, and without immigration judge review, failed on every statutory ground the government advanced.

This decision draws a hard constitutional and statutory line. The President’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) reaches the border. It does not reach inside the United States. Once a noncitizen is physically present on American soil, Congress — not the President — controls the removal process. Proclamation 10888 tried to change that. The D.C. Circuit said the INA does not permit it.

🧍 The Facts — The Human Before the Law

They crossed the southern border and were immediately placed into a removal pipeline that Congress never authorized. No credible fear interview. No Form I-862. No referral to an immigration judge. No opportunity to file an asylum application. Under DHS’s “Direct Repatriation” pathway — created by informal guidance implementing Proclamation 10888 — officers received explicit instructions to bypass the standard statutory forms and procedures entirely.

These were people who, under any normal application of the INA, would have triggered mandatory protections. Individuals with colorable asylum claims. People facing persecution. Individuals who might face torture if returned to their home countries. Congress built a specific statutory framework to protect exactly these people — credible fear screenings, asylum applications, withholding assessments, CAT reviews. Proclamation 10888, signed on January 20, 2025, declared their presence an “invasion” and swept those protections off the table with an executive signature. The Guidance that followed told DHS officers to act as though those protections did not exist.

The district court certified a class of all such individuals, declared the Guidance unlawful, and permanently enjoined its implementation. The D.C. Circuit affirmed.

⚖️ The Ruling — Plain Language First

The Short Version

The President can bar people from entering the United States. The President cannot create his own rules for removing people who are already here. Those are two different things. Congress gave the President the first power. Congress kept the second power for itself — and exercised it in exhaustive detail in the INA.

The Statutory Framework

The court identified three independent INA violations in Proclamation 10888 and the implementing Guidance:

8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) — Entry Suspension Authority
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens…”

Violation 1 — Asylum (§ 1158(a)). Any alien physically present in the United States may apply for asylum. The statutory exceptions are narrow: safe third country agreement, one-year filing bar, prior denial. The Proclamation invented a fourth exception — the President’s finding of an “invasion.” The INA permits no such exception. An executive cannot create new bars to asylum eligibility by proclamation. New restrictions on asylum eligibility require notice-and-comment rulemaking under §§ 1158(b)(2)(C) and 1158(d)(5)(B). The Guidance was informal. It went through no rulemaking. It is void.

Violation 2 — Withholding of Removal (§ 1231(b)(3)(A)). Withholding is mandatory. If an applicant establishes that removal to a particular country would subject them to persecution on a protected ground, the INA bars that removal. The DHS Guidance instructed officers not to assess persecution or torture risks at all. That instruction does not limit the statute. It violates it directly.

Violation 3 — Convention Against Torture Protections. The regulations implementing CAT require a two-stage assessment: full withholding-under-CAT review, followed by deferral-of-removal review. The Guidance collapsed these into a single, truncated screening, stripped applicants of their regulatory rights to counsel and evidence, and eliminated appellate review. The court held this unlawful. Agencies cannot substitute their own procedures for duly promulgated regulations.

Rejecting the Government’s Counter-Arguments

The government argued that § 1252(f)(1) — which bars lower courts from enjoining the operation of certain Part IV INA provisions — precluded the district court’s injunction. The court rejected this. The Proclamation derived its authority from §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a), both in Part II of the INA, not Part IV. The injunction targeted those extra-statutory actions, not the removal statutes themselves.

The court also clarified a critical distinction: vacatur under the APA is not an injunction. Section 1252(f)(1) limits injunctive relief. It says nothing about vacatur. The district court’s vacatur of the DHS Guidance — which set aside the unlawful agency action and restored the statutory status quo — was proper and fully within the court’s authority.

📌 What This Actually Does

⚖️ The Real-World Rule

Every noncitizen physically present in the United States retains the statutory right to apply for asylum, to receive withholding of removal if eligible, and to have CAT claims properly assessed — regardless of any presidential proclamation declaring a border “invasion.” No executive order, proclamation, or informal guidance can extinguish these rights. They require a statute to modify. They require notice-and-comment rulemaking to restrict. A signature on a proclamation is not enough.

Procedure	Proclamation 10888 / DHS Guidance	INA Statutory Requirement
Asylum Application	Categorically barred for “invasion” entrants; no I-589 permitted	Any alien physically present may apply — § 1158(a)(1); only 3 statutory exceptions
Credible Fear Interview	Bypassed; DHS officers instructed not to conduct screenings	Mandatory for expedited removal candidates — § 1225(b)(1)(B)
Immigration Judge Review	Eliminated; no Form I-862 Notice to Appear issued	Required for regular removal — § 1229a; record on appeal preserved
Withholding Assessment	Guidance instructs officers to skip persecution/torture risk assessment	Mandatory if applicant faces persecution — § 1231(b)(3)(A)
CAT Two-Stage Review	Collapsed into single truncated screening; no counsel, no evidence rights	Full two-stage assessment required — 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16–208.18
Rulemaking	Guidance issued informally; no notice-and-comment rulemaking	New asylum restrictions require formal rulemaking — §§ 1158(b)(2)(C), 1158(d)(5)(B)
§ 1252(f)(1) Applicability	Government claimed it barred district court’s injunction	Court: Proclamation authority in Part II, not Part IV; injunction permissible

🔍 The Fatal Flaws — Analysis

The government’s legal theory in RAICES v. Mullin rested on a series of statutory sleights of hand. Each one fails on its own terms. Together, they amount to an argument that the President can do by proclamation what Congress expressly reserved for legislation. Here are the five fatal flaws in the government’s position, ranked from most destructive to least:

The Entry-Equals-Removal Substitution. The government’s core argument was that the President’s authority to suspend “entry” under § 1182(f) carries with it an implicit authority to create new removal procedures for those already inside the country. This is textually unsupportable. “Entry” and “removal” are not synonyms in the INA. They never have been. The INA devotes separate statutory parts to each. The historical record — every prior presidential use of § 1182(f) — shows presidents have used it exclusively to restrict admissions, never to govern removal of people already present. The D.C. Circuit’s rejection of this argument is clean, thorough, and correct.
The Informal Guidance End-Run Around Rulemaking. Even if the substantive policy goals of Proclamation 10888 were legally permissible — they are not — the method of implementation was independently fatal. The administration tried to restrict asylum eligibility and alter removal procedures through informal DHS guidance that bypassed notice-and-comment rulemaking entirely. Sections 1158(b)(2)(C) and 1158(d)(5)(B) explicitly require rulemaking for new asylum restrictions. “Guidance” is not a rule. It has no force of law. The DHS Guidance was void from the moment it issued.
The § 1252(f)(1) Overreach. The government read § 1252(f)(1) as a near-total bar on judicial review of any removal-adjacent executive action. The court correctly rejected this. Section 1252(f)(1) bars enjoining the operation of specific Part IV removal statutes. It does not bar enjoining unlawful executive actions taken under Part II authority. It does not bar APA vacatur. The government’s reading would effectively immunize any executive action touching immigration from judicial review — a result Congress plainly did not intend when it enacted the provision.
The CAT Collapsing. The Guidance’s treatment of Convention Against Torture claims is perhaps the most technically egregious portion of the administration’s framework. The two-stage CAT assessment — established by duly promulgated regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16–208.18 — reflects years of regulatory development and implements specific treaty obligations. Collapsing it into a single truncated screening, without counsel, without evidence rights, without appellate review, is not a permissible agency interpretation. It is the agency replacing its own regulations with something lesser. Agencies cannot do that without going through the rulemaking process to repeal or modify existing rules.
The Class Certification Attack. The government argued the certified class was overbroad, citing Article III standing concerns and the Supreme Court’s decisions in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez and Trump v. CASA. The D.C. Circuit rejected this. The class consisted of individuals physically present in the United States and subject to the Proclamation — people facing imminent harm from an ongoing unlawful policy. The Rule 23(b)(2) framework is specifically designed for systemic harms requiring injunctive relief. The “one plaintiff” standing rule for injunctive class relief applies. The dissent’s concerns about a “perpetual, open-ended class” are real in the abstract but did not defeat certification on these facts.

📋 Practice Advisory — For Practitioners

🔴 Immediate Removal Defense

If your client was removed under a “Direct Repatriation” or non-statutory expedited removal pathway after January 20, 2025 — without a credible fear interview, without an asylum application, and without immigration judge review — that removal occurred under a procedure the D.C. Circuit has now declared unlawful. Document everything. Preserve the record. The remedy question is still developing.

🟡 Withholding and CAT Claims Now

The court’s holding on withholding of removal (§ 1231(b)(3)(A)) and CAT is mandatory language. Officers are required to assess persecution and torture risks. If your client is in expedited removal proceedings and an officer refuses to conduct these assessments, that refusal is now directly contrary to binding circuit authority. File the appropriate motions. Get the refusal on the record. Seek emergency relief if warranted.

🟢 Asylum Applications Remain Legally Protected

The three statutory bars to asylum eligibility remain in force: safe third country agreement under § 1158(a)(2)(A), one-year filing bar under § 1158(a)(2)(B), and prior denial under § 1158(a)(2)(C). Proclamation 10888’s “invasion” bar does not exist as a matter of federal law. File the I-589. Assert the statutory right. The government may deny the claim on the merits — that is discretionary. The government cannot deny the right to file.

🔵 Regulatory Rulemaking Watch

The administration’s lawful avenue, if it wishes to restrict asylum eligibility beyond existing statutory bars, is formal notice-and-comment rulemaking under §§ 1158(b)(2)(C) and 1158(d)(5)(B). Watch the Federal Register. Any new proposed rule targeting asylum eligibility requires a comment period. Practitioners and advocacy organizations must engage those proceedings when they come.

⚫ The Dissent Is a Roadmap for the Next Move

Judge Walker’s dissent is worth reading carefully. The dissent argues that the President possesses inherent constitutional authority to expel noncitizens — grounded in sovereignty doctrine, the Vesting Clause, and historical practice — that exists independently of statutory authority and potentially preempts the INA’s procedural requirements. This argument did not prevail in the D.C. Circuit. It will appear again. The Solicitor General’s office is aware of it. Practitioners should be prepared to meet it at the Supreme Court level.

✅ What To Do Now — Concrete Steps

🟢 Practitioner Action Steps

Audit your active removal cases — Identify any client subjected to a non-statutory removal pathway, “Direct Repatriation,” or denial of credible fear screening after January 20, 2025. Those removals occurred under procedures the D.C. Circuit has declared unlawful.
Assert asylum rights affirmatively — File the I-589 for any eligible client in proceedings. The government’s position that “invasion” entrants have no right to apply is now rejected law in the D.C. Circuit. Do not accept an officer’s refusal to receive the application without making a record.
Demand credible fear procedures for expedited removal clients — An officer who refuses to conduct a credible fear interview for a client subject to expedited removal is acting contrary to the INA and contrary to the D.C. Circuit’s holding. Memorialize the refusal in writing. Seek supervisory review. File the habeas if the client is detained.
Preserve CAT records — If your client’s CAT claim was assessed under the collapsed single-screening procedure rather than the two-stage regulatory process, that assessment is procedurally defective. Raise the regulatory violation at every level. The 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16–208.18 framework remains the operative law.
Monitor the Federal Register — The administration’s lawful next step is formal rulemaking. New proposed rules restricting asylum eligibility will require a public comment period. Engage aggressively. The administrative record you build in rulemaking becomes the evidentiary record in the next round of litigation.
Watch for Supreme Court cert petition — The administration will almost certainly petition for certiorari. The conflict between the D.C. Circuit majority and Judge Walker’s dissent on inherent expulsion power presents the kind of constitutional question the current Court will find compelling. Begin briefing contingency arguments now.

⚖️ The Verdict

The D.C. Circuit held what the text of the INA has always said: the President can bar people from entering the United States. The President cannot govern what happens to people who are already here. The INA’s removal procedures — the hearings, the asylum applications, the withholding assessments, the CAT reviews — are not policy preferences that a proclamation can override. They are statutory mandates. Congress wrote them. Congress owns them.

Proclamation 10888 tried to replace the INA with an emergency declaration. The DHS Guidance tried to implement that replacement through informal instructions rather than rulemaking. Both failed. The Guidance is vacated. The injunction holds.

Where this goes next: the Solicitor General’s office will almost certainly seek Supreme Court review. Judge Walker’s dissent on inherent presidential expulsion authority — rooted in sovereignty doctrine and the Vesting Clause — is a serious argument that will get a serious hearing in the current Court. The D.C. Circuit majority is right on the statutory merits. Whether the constitutional merits produce the same outcome is the question that will define the next chapter of this litigation.

RAICES v. Mullin stands for now. The fight is not over.

⚖️ Bottom Line for Practitioners

Proclamation 10888’s removal procedures are unlawful. Every noncitizen physically present in the United States retains the right to apply for asylum under § 1158(a), to seek withholding of removal under § 1231(b)(3)(A), and to have CAT claims assessed under the two-stage regulatory framework. No presidential proclamation changes this. Assert these rights now. Build the record. The Supreme Court is next.

📎 Sources & Citation

Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, et al. v. Mullin, No. 25-5243 (D.C. Cir. 2026).
Statutes: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1182(f), 1185(a), 1225(b)(1), 1229a, 1231(b)(3)(A), 1252(f)(1).
Regulations: 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16–208.18.
Proclamation 10888, 90 Fed. Reg. (Jan. 20, 2025).

📄 Download Full Decision (PDF)

Legal Disclaimer: This post is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific. The legal landscape addressed in this post may change, including through Supreme Court review or new executive or regulatory action. Consult a qualified immigration attorney regarding your specific situation. © Mike Baker Law. All rights reserved.

📅 Updates

This section will be updated as appellate developments occur, including any certiorari petition, Supreme Court briefing, or regulatory rulemaking in response to this decision. Check back for date-stamped updates.

Posted in 8 USC 1182(f), asylum rights, D.C. Circuit 2026, immigration executive power, INA removal procedures, Proclamation 10888, RAICES v. Mullin, § 1252(f)(1) | Leave a comment

Second Circuit: Long-Term EWI Residents Are Not “Seeking Admission” — Bond Hearings Required | Cunha v. Freden

Posted on April 29, 2026 by Mike Baker

Second Circuit: Long-Term Interior Residents Are Not “Seeking Admission” — Bond Hearings Required, Circuit Split Now Open

Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141 (2d Cir. April 28, 2026) | Judge Bianco, writing for the panel (Cabranes, Bianco, Nathan, Circuit Judges.)

The Second Circuit ruled on April 28, 2026 that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) — the statute the Trump administration weaponized in July 2025 to eliminate bond hearings for everyone who entered without inspection — does not apply to noncitizens who entered without authorization years or decades ago and now live in the interior. Those people fall under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). They get a bond hearing. The ruling joins more than 370 district court judges who have rejected the government’s position, and it opens a direct circuit split with the Fifth and Eighth Circuits. The Supreme Court will take this case.

The circuit map now looks like this: the Fifth Circuit (Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, Feb. 2026) and the Eighth Circuit (Avila v. Bondi, 2026) say mandatory detention with no bond. The Second Circuit, plus the Seventh’s preliminary ruling in Castañon-Nava, say § 1226(a) governs and bond hearings are available. Two circuits against millions of long-term residents. The Second Circuit, 370+ district judges, and the Seventh Circuit’s preliminary ruling for them.

Cunha v. Freden circuit split map — state by state breakdown of § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandatory detention vs § 1226(a) bond hearing circuits

Full analysis below.

🧑 The Man Behind the Case

Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha came from Brazil around 2004 or 2005. He crossed without inspection. He stayed. He built a life in Norwood, Massachusetts — owns a home, married, raised two U.S. citizen children, filed for asylum in 2016, got a valid work permit, and ran a small construction business. He has never been arrested for or charged with a crime. Not once.

On September 26, 2025, ICE pulled his car over on the way to work and arrested him on an administrative warrant issued — by the government’s own citation — under § 1226 of the INA. DHS charged him as inadmissible: present without admission, no documentation. He asked for a bond hearing. The immigration judge said no. The government’s position: his entry without inspection twenty years earlier permanently assigned him to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), with no judicial review of flight risk or dangerousness, for however long his removal case runs. The government itself conceded he posed no danger and no flight risk. That concession did not matter to the government’s theory. It did matter to the Second Circuit.

ℹ️ The Policy Shift That Started This — In July 2025, ICE issued Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission, abandoning 28 years of practice under which EWI noncitizens received bond hearings. Two months later, the BIA’s Matter of Yajure Hurtado (September 2025) provided the formal legal framework to justify what ICE had already done. The Cunha habeas petition — filed in the Western District of New York after ICE transferred him to Buffalo — is one of thousands triggered by that policy shift. The Second Circuit’s ruling resolves them for the circuit.

⚖️ The Ruling

Plain Language First

Section 1225(b)(2)(A) requires both “applicant for admission” AND “seeking admission.” Cunha satisfies only the first. He is not seeking admission. Therefore § 1226(a) governs. He gets a bond hearing. That is the whole case.

The Statutory Framework

Section 1225(b)(2)(A) reads: “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained.” The government read this as a single, unified mandate: anyone who carries the status of “applicant for admission” — which by § 1225(a)(1) includes every EWI noncitizen — faces mandatory detention with no bond option.

Judge Bianco starts exactly where a rigorous textualist must: with the words Congress actually chose. The sentence contains two distinct phrases doing two distinct pieces of work. “Applicant for admission” is a statutory fiction. Section 1225(a)(1) says such persons “shall be deemed” applicants for admission. “Deem” is a term of legal art that creates a fiction — it treats something as if it were what it is not. Congress manufactured an artificial legal category for people like Cunha: they are called applicants even though they never applied for anything and cannot lawfully apply now. The fiction routes them into removal proceedings. It does not, by itself, mandate detention.

“Seeking admission” carries no such fiction. Congress did not “deem” anyone to be “seeking admission.” That phrase retains its ordinary meaning — and its ordinary meaning is temporal. “Seeking” is a present participle. The principal verb is “is.” The statute addresses “an alien who is seeking admission.” Right now. Presently. Not in 2004. Cunha crossed without permission two decades ago, has lived here ever since, and seeks asylum and cancellation of removal. He is not requesting lawful entry into the United States. The court puts it plainly: he is the opposite of someone seeking admission.

🔑 The Core Analytical Move: Fiction vs. Activity

“Applicant for admission” = a status Congress created artificially via “deemed.” It has no temporal scope — you can hold it for twenty years. “Seeking admission” = an activity that requires present engagement. The statute demands both. Congress put both phrases in the same sentence for a reason. The government’s reading collapses them into one. The Second Circuit enforces the difference.

The Counter-Arguments, Rejected

§ 1226(a) applies only to visa overstayers. The government argued § 1226(a) covers only previously admitted aliens — visa overstays and status violators — not EWI noncitizens. The court calls this a rewrite. Section 1226(a) covers “an alien” pending a removal decision. Congress knows how to limit provisions to deportable aliens — it does so repeatedly elsewhere in IIRIRA. It did not do so here. “An alien” means what it says.

The Laken Riley Act is irrelevant. The government’s reading renders the Laken Riley Act — signed in January 2025 to mandate detention of EWI noncitizens who commit specified crimes — nearly superfluous for the population it targeted. If all EWI noncitizens were already mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A), Congress enacted an entire statute to solve a problem that did not exist. Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes, and it does not pass legislation that achieves nothing.

Jennings v. Rodriguez is not dicta — it controls. In Jennings (2018), the Supreme Court described the statutory architecture: § 1225 operates “at the Nation’s borders and ports of entry, where the Government must determine whether an alien seeking to enter the country is admissible.” Section 1226 applies to “aliens already in the country.” The Second Circuit treats this as authoritative explication. The government identifies no change in the legal landscape that would justify departing from it.

Thirty years of executive practice and congressional silence. Five administrations — including Trump’s first term — released EWI noncitizens on bond under § 1226(a). The 1997 DOJ regulation implementing IIRIRA stated it explicitly: “despite being applicants for admission, aliens who are present without having been admitted or paroled . . . will be eligible for bond and bond redetermination.” The court reads this as DOJ itself acknowledging the critical distinction: yes, they are “applicants for admission” by fiction, but no, they are not “seeking admission,” so bond applies. Congress then amended IIRIRA repeatedly without correcting that interpretation. Congressional silence in the face of settled administrative practice reinforces the practice.

Constitutional avoidance as the final backstop. Even if the text were ambiguous — and the court insists it is not — the government’s interpretation proposes the broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in American history. Mandatory indefinite detention for millions of noncitizens, many with no dangerousness finding and no flight risk, with removal proceedings averaging over two years, raises severe Fifth Amendment due process concerns under Zadvydas v. Davis and Velasco Lopez v. Decker. A reading that avoids those problems prevails over one that creates them.

📊 What This Actually Does: The Detention Map

The real-world rule: An EWI noncitizen arrested in the interior on a warrant, not covered by § 1226(c)’s criminal grounds, is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). “Applicant for admission” status alone does not eliminate judicial review.

Scenario	5th & 8th Circuits	2nd Circuit
EWI 20+ years ago, no criminal history, U.S. citizen family, interior arrest	Mandatory detention — no bond	§ 1226(a) — bond hearing available
EWI 5 years ago, no criminal history, interior arrest	Mandatory detention — no bond	§ 1226(a) — bond hearing available
EWI apprehended at or near the border at time of crossing	§ 1225(b)(2)(A) mandatory detention	§ 1225(b)(2)(A) mandatory detention
EWI + Laken Riley Act qualifying offense (theft, assault of LEO, serious bodily injury)	§ 1226(c) mandatory detention	§ 1226(c) mandatory detention
Visa overstay, no criminal history	§ 1226(a) — bond available (all agree)	§ 1226(a) — bond available

🚨 What the Fifth Circuit Said — And Why It’s Wrong

The Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez (Jones & Duncan, JJ.; Douglas, J., dissenting) and the Eighth Circuit in Avila v. Bondi both held that mandatory detention applies. Here is their reasoning, and why the Second Circuit correctly dismantles it.

The Fifth Circuit’s Core Theory

“Applicant for admission” and “seeking admission” carry the same ordinary English meaning. When a person applies for something, they are seeking it. The majority’s signature move: the college applicant analogy. Just as a college applicant “seeks admission” while her application is pending, an EWI noncitizen “seeks admission” while removal proceedings are pending. The majority dismissed 28 years of contrary executive practice under Pereira v. Sessions: consistent agency practice cannot rescue a reading inconsistent with plain statutory text. Judge Douglas dissented, calling the majority’s reading one that “no one has ever thought” § 1225(b)(2)(A) means — because it does not mean it.

The Fifth Circuit ignored “deemed” — which is the entire ballgame. Congress used “deemed” in § 1225(a)(1) because EWI noncitizens are not, in ordinary English, applicants for admission. They never applied for anything. The fiction makes them applicants constructively, for purposes of routing them into removal proceedings. The Fifth Circuit then applied ordinary English to “seeking admission” in the same provision — treating both phrases as plain synonyms — while discarding the signal Congress embedded in the first phrase by calling it a fiction. You cannot take a phrase Congress labeled artificial and use ordinary language to collapse it into the adjacent phrase that carries no such label. That is not textualism. That is selective reading.

The college applicant analogy collapses on contact with actual facts. A college applicant submits an application and waits for a decision on that application. Cunha submitted nothing. He crossed a border without permission twenty years ago. He never sought lawful entry. He cannot seek lawful entry — there is no application to file, no process in which he is pending. The college analogy works only if the college deemed everyone physically on its campus to be an “applicant for admission” regardless of whether they ever filed anything — and then said those same people were “seeking admission” in ordinary English. The Second Circuit’s better analogy: someone sneaks into Yankee Stadium in the first inning with no ticket and is found by security in the seventh inning. Nobody calls that fan “seeking admission” to the game.

The Fifth Circuit made the Laken Riley Act almost meaningless for its target population. Congress passed the Act in January 2025 to mandate detention of EWI noncitizens who commit theft, assault of law enforcement, or crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury. If all EWI noncitizens are already mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A), the Act achieves nothing for the population it addressed. Congress knew who murdered Laken Riley and why the Act was named after her. Jose Antonio Ibarra was an EWI noncitizen who had been paroled. Under the Fifth Circuit’s reading, the Act Congress passed in response to that case is largely superfluous for people like him. Congress does not enact superfluous legislation.

The Fifth Circuit produced the absurd result it claimed to prevent. The government argued its interpretation equalizes EWI noncitizens with those who present at ports of entry — preventing unlawful entrants from receiving “better treatment.” What the Fifth Circuit actually delivers is this: the 20-year EWI resident gets mandatory detention with no bond; the visa overstayer with identical community ties, identical family, identical length of residence gets a bond hearing. Same equities, opposite outcomes — based entirely on how someone crossed a border two decades ago. IIRIRA was not designed to produce that result. It produced a unified removal proceeding, not a unified detention regime that punishes border crossers more harshly than visa violators for the rest of their lives.

🏛️ Practice Advisory: What This Means in the Second Circuit

✅ EWI Interior Arrests — Connecticut, New York, Vermont

✓Clients arrested in the interior on an administrative warrant who entered without inspection are entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a) — unless § 1226(c) criminal grounds apply or they were apprehended at or near the border at the time of entry.

✓File for bond hearings immediately for any client currently held under a § 1225(b)(2)(A) determination in Second Circuit custody. This is now binding circuit precedent.

✓Immigration judges in the circuit must follow Cunha. The BIA’s Yajure Hurtado receives no deference post-Loper Bright. Raise the argument at every level and preserve it for any cert-stage development.

✓At the bond hearing, the government bears the burden of establishing flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. The hearing itself is the victory — argue the merits aggressively and build the record.

✓Watch for ICE transfer attempts to Fifth or Eighth Circuit facilities. File a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition before any transfer and include a TRO to block it. Jurisdiction is determined by where the client sits physically at the time of filing.

🏙️ Illinois Practitioners: Seventh Circuit Has Already Sided With You — Preliminarily

In Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1062 (7th Cir. 2025), the Seventh Circuit — on a stay-motion review — preliminarily reached the same conclusion as the Second Circuit. The court’s language is precise and written for your clients: it said that while a noncitizen “arrested in the Midwest” might qualify as an “alien present in the United States who had not been admitted” under § 1225(a)(1), the mandatory detention provision limits its scope to an “applicant for admission” who is “seeking admission” — and a Midwest interior arrest does not satisfy that second requirement.

The limit: This is a preliminary ruling on a stay motion, not a full merits decision. The Seventh Circuit has not yet issued a final opinion on the merits. Use Castañon-Nava as strong persuasive authority in habeas petitions — pair it with Cunha as the circuit court holding — but preserve the argument fully in anticipation of the Seventh Circuit’s eventual merits decision. Given the stay ruling’s reasoning, the directional signal is clear.

⚠️ Transfer Jurisdiction Warning
Once a client moves to a detention facility in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi (5th Cir.) or the Eighth Circuit states, that circuit’s mandatory-detention precedent governs. ICE has used transfers aggressively to forum-shop adverse habeas cases. If you receive any indication of a transfer — file that day. The window can close in hours.

🚨 Outside the Second Circuit: Habeas Remains Your Weapon

In the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, mandatory detention is currently the law. Everywhere else, district court habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 remain viable and are winning at a rate that dwarfs the government’s wins. File on: (1) § 1226(a) governs — Cunha is now primary authority; (2) prolonged detention without individualized review violates due process under Zadvydas; (3) no individualized dangerousness finding renders continued detention constitutionally deficient under Velasco Lopez. The Second Circuit’s 61-page opinion is your brief appendix.

🔢 What To Do Now

Audit detained EWI clients immediately. If they sit in Second Circuit facilities and the IJ classified them under § 1225(b)(2)(A), file for bond. This is now settled circuit law.

Monitor transfer notices in real time. Set EOIR case alerts. Any indication of a transfer to a 5th or 8th Circuit facility triggers an emergency habeas filing in the current district court with a TRO request to block the move.

Build the constitutional record even where you win on statute. Detention duration, family separation, community ties, lack of any individualized dangerousness finding — document all of it. The Supreme Court will need those facts. Build the record now.

Challenge § 1225(b)(2)(A) determinations in every circuit. Preserve the statutory argument everywhere. Raise Cunha, raise Jennings, raise the surplusage canon, raise the Laken Riley Act superfluity argument. The cert petition is coming. Make the circuit conflict record as clean as possible.

Prepare for certiorari. The government will petition. A 2-2 circuit split — with two courts agreeing and two courts disagreeing on a question affecting millions of people — meets every criterion for cert. Identify amicus organizations now. The Supreme Court argument is the finish line, and the Second Circuit just handed the winning side its best brief.

🏁 Conclusion

The Second Circuit got this right. It read two phrases appearing in the same sentence of the same statute, gave both phrases independent meaning, followed the Supreme Court’s own description of the statutory architecture in Jennings, honored 30 years of executive practice across five administrations, and refused to impose the largest mass-detention mandate in American history through an interpretation that 370+ district judges have rejected. The ruling is careful, rigorous, and correct.

The Fifth and Eighth Circuits arrived at a result that treats the Laken Riley Act as essentially superfluous, punishes EWI residents more harshly than visa overstayers with identical equities, and gives ICE the power to lock up millions based on a decades-old fact about how someone crossed a border — with no individualized assessment, no judicial review, and no end date. That is not what Congress wrote. That is not what five administrations understood. And it is not what the Fifth Amendment permits.

The Supreme Court takes this case. When it does, the weight of textual argument runs decisively for the Second Circuit: the surplusage canon, the temporal distinction between noun and present participle, Jennings‘s own description of the statutory scheme, the Laken Riley Act’s implicit concession that non-criminal EWI noncitizens were eligible for bond, and the constitutional avoidance canon all point the same direction. The question is whether there are five votes. There should be.

⚖️ THE BOTTOM LINE

An EWI noncitizen living in the interior is not “seeking admission.” She is seeking to stay.

Section 1226(a) governs her detention. She gets a bond hearing. That is what the statute says, what thirty years of executive practice reflected, and what the Second Circuit now holds as circuit law.

Disclaimer: This analysis is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law changes rapidly and outcomes depend entirely on individual facts. Consult qualified immigration counsel before taking any legal action.

📄 Download Cunha v. Freden (2d Cir. 2026) PDF

Posted in bond hearings, bond hearings required. Direct split with the 5th & 8th. SCOTUS cert is coming. Full analysis: mikebakerlaw.com/blog/cunha-v-freden-second-circuit-ewi-bond-hearings-1226 ⚖️Sonnet 4.6Adaptive, Buenrostro-Mendez, circuit split, Cunha v. Freden, immigration detention, Jennings v. Rodriguez, Laken Riley Act, Loper Bright, Second Circuit, Yajure Hurtado, Zadvydas, § 1225(b)(2)(A), § 1226(a) | Leave a comment

DACA Doesn’t End Removal — BIA Reverses IJ Who Terminated Proceedings Without Weighing DHS Opposition

Posted on April 25, 2026 by Mike Baker

⚖️ Multi-Decision Alert — BIA & USCIS — April–May 2026

Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026) |
Matter of C-P-Y-, 29 I&N Dec. 610 (BIA 2026) |
USCIS PM-602-0198 (Apr. 10, 2026)

Thirty days. Three rulings. The floor drops out from under an entire generation of young immigrants who did everything the government asked them to do.

👤 The Human Story: Diego Hernandez Garcia, Maryville, Tennessee

The Face Behind the Framework

Diego Hernandez Garcia is not an abstraction. He is what these three rulings look like in the real world.

📐 The Three-Way Squeeze

These rulings don’t operate independently. They form interlocking walls. Here is what each one does:

USCIS — April 10, 2026

PM-602-0198 — SIJ Deferred Action

BIA — April 24, 2026

Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589

BIA — May 2026

Matter of C-P-Y-, 29 I&N Dec. 610

⚖️ Ruling One: DACA Doesn’t Close the Courtroom

Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026)

DACA status is the starting line for a discretionary termination motion — not the finish line.

📄 Ruling Two: The Pipeline for SIJ Deferred Action Is Cut Off

USCIS PM-602-0198 — Effective May 10, 2026

⚖️ Ruling Three: The Crime Bar Bites Your Most Recent Arrival

Matter of C-P-Y-, 29 I&N Dec. 610 (BIA 2026)

The words “arrival” and “arrived” in the serious nonpolitical crime bar mean the alien’s most recent arrival in the United States — not the first.

🎯 What This Actually Does

Protection Layer	What Advocates Believed	What These Rulings Establish
Deferred Action (SIJ-based)	✓ I-360 approval → automatic deferred action consideration	✗ No automatic consideration after May 10, 2026. Case-by-case only.
DACA in Removal Proceedings	✓ Active DACA → IJ should terminate proceedings	✗ DACA opens the door to a motion. It doesn’t grant termination. DHS opposition must be weighed.
Deferred Action as Constitutional Right	✓ Due process requires notice and hearing before revocation	✗ Deferred action is discretionary. No protected interest. No hearing required. (Hernandez Garcia, E.D. Tenn. 2026)
Withholding After LPR Re-entry	✓ Green card + re-entry resets the serious nonpolitical crime clock	✗ Most recent arrival controls. LPR status provides no reset. Bar still applies.
SIJ Classification Pending Visa	✓ Approved I-360 = protection from removal while waiting in backlog	✗ Approved I-360 conveys no status, no lawful presence, no employment authorization without separate deferred action grant.

🔍 The Fatal Flaws in This Framework

Analysis

USCIS’s reliance interest analysis is structurally dishonest.
PM-602-0198 acknowledges that some SIJ petitioners submitted their Form I-360 specifically because they expected deferred action to follow. Then it dismisses that reliance with 30 days’ notice and a declaration that government interests outweigh theirs. For a population that cannot file Form I-485 because visa numbers are unavailable for five to ten years — a delay that is itself a product of congressional inaction, not the individual’s failure — a 30-day transition window is not a serious engagement with reliance interests. It is a legal formality dressed up as fairness.
The gang statistics do not justify the breadth of the policy change.
USCIS’s July 2025 report found concerning numbers — MS-13 members, violent offenders — among the 300,000-plus SIJ petitioners reviewed. But 600 MS-13 members out of a population that large is a fraction of a percent. The policy response eliminates automatic protection for the entire population based on the conduct of a tiny minority. The biometrics problem USCIS identified — that I-360 adjudications don’t require biometric background checks — has a targeted solution: require biometrics for deferred action consideration. USCIS evaluated that alternative and rejected it, primarily because it would cost money. The administration chose policy convenience over proportionality.
The C-P-Y- “most recent arrival” rule creates a trap for LPRs who travel.
Lawful permanent residents routinely travel abroad. Many do so for family emergencies, work, and entirely ordinary reasons. Under C-P-Y-, each return to the United States from a trip abroad resets the “arrival” clock for serious nonpolitical crime bar purposes. An LPR who committed a qualifying offense as a teenager abroad, obtained a green card a decade later, and has since traveled internationally is, on each return, freshly exposed to a bar they had reason to believe was resolved. The Board’s textualist rationale is defensible. The practical consequence — particularly for immigrant communities from countries where gang recruitment and coerced criminal activity are endemic — is brutal.
The Hernandez Garcia case exposes the ICE-USCIS coordination problem — and no ruling addresses it.
ICE detained Hernandez Garcia while his deferred action was valid. USCIS revoked the deferred action after he was already in custody. The federal court ruled this sequence was constitutional because deferred action is discretionary and creates no protected interest. But nobody has answered the structural question: what stops ICE from using detention as the trigger for USCIS revocation, transforming every encounter with law enforcement into a de facto removal mechanism, regardless of what the individual’s paperwork says? The Hernandez Garcia case surfaced this in the most public way possible. The courts have so far declined to close the door.

🧑‍⚖️ Practice Advisory: What This Means for Your Clients

SIJ Clients — Immediate

DACA Clients in Removal Proceedings

LPR Clients With Pre-Entry Criminal History

⚠️ ICE Encounter Protocol — All Deferred Action Clients

✅ What To Do Now

Concrete Steps — In Order of Urgency

Identify every SIJ client with a pending or approved I-360 who does not yet have deferred action. Build individualized G-325A requests now. The 2022 policy no longer applies to new filings after May 10, 2026.
Audit every pending motion to terminate filed for a DACA client. If the motion doesn’t address DHS’s opposition and the public interest in finality under Matter of W-Y-U-, supplement before the hearing.
For SIJ clients already holding deferred action that will expire: begin renewal preparation immediately. USCIS retains discretion to deny renewal. Build the humanitarian record now, not at the deadline.
For any LPR client with pre-entry criminal history who travels internationally: conduct a C-P-Y- analysis before the trip. Document the analysis in the file. If the risk is real, advise against travel until the exposure is resolved.
Establish ICE encounter protocols for all deferred action clients: written emergency contact card, copy of approval notice with a trusted contact, attorney contact information physically on the client’s person.
Monitor A.C.R. v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-03962 (E.D.N.Y.), for any injunction against PM-602-0198. The same court that stayed the June 2025 rescission may act again on the April 2026 memo.
Monitor the Hernandez Garcia appeal. If the Sixth Circuit takes up whether ICE can trigger USCIS revocation through detention, that ruling will matter for every deferred action client in the circuit.

🔚 Conclusion

Every practitioner with clients in this population needs to know what changed, why it changed, and what the options are going forward. The window to protect these clients is narrow. Act now.

⚖️ The Bottom Line

📄 Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026)
📄 Matter of C-P-Y-, 29 I&N Dec. 610 (BIA 2026)
📋 USCIS PM-602-0198 — SIJ Deferred Action (Apr. 10, 2026)

🔄 Updates

May 9, 2026 — Initial Publication

Post published. Monitoring A.C.R. v. Noem (E.D.N.Y.) for injunction against PM-602-0198 and the Hernandez Garcia appeal for Sixth Circuit review of the ICE-detention-then-revocation sequence.

Posted in 8 CFR 1003.18, BIA 2026, deferred action, discretionary termination, ermination of proceedings, judicial recusal, Matter of W-Y-U, removal proceedings | Leave a comment

Search for:
Phone: 312-714-2800
May 2026

M T W T F S S

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Apr
Recent Posts
Archives
Archives
Categories
Categories
RSS Feed
Links
- CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 25-M-397(SCD) CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 25-M-397(SCD)
- Law Offices of Michael D. Baker

The Floor Drops Out — Three Rulings in Thirty Days Dismantle the Deferred Action Safety Net for SIJ and DACA Recipients

👤 The Human Story: Diego Hernandez Garcia, Maryville, Tennessee

📐 The Three-Way Squeeze

⚖️ Ruling One: DACA Doesn’t Close the Courtroom

📄 Ruling Two: The Pipeline for SIJ Deferred Action Is Cut Off

⚖️ Ruling Three: The Crime Bar Bites Your Most Recent Arrival

🎯 What This Actually Does

🔍 The Fatal Flaws in This Framework

🧑‍⚖️ Practice Advisory: What This Means for Your Clients

✅ What To Do Now

Concrete Steps — In Order of Urgency

🔚 Conclusion

🔄 Updates

BIA Kills “Married Mexican Women Unable to Leave” as a Cognizable Social Group in Matter of V-A-B- — And Reverses the IJ on Marriage, Government Protection, and Internal Relocation

BIA Kills “Married Mexican Women Unable to Leave” as a Cognizable Social Group in Matter of V-A-B- — And Reverses the IJ on Marriage, Government Protection, and Internal Relocation

Introduction

🧍 The Facts

⚖️ The Ruling

Holding One: The Social Group Is Circular and Lacks Particularity

Holding Two: Marriage Cannot Be Presumed from Cohabitation or Children

Holdings Three and Four: Government Protection and Internal Relocation — Both Clearly Erroneous

📊 What This Actually Does

🔍 The Fatal Flaws

📋 Practice Advisory

Building a Cognizable Domestic Violence Social Group

Establishing Lawful Marriage Under Da Silva

Proving Unable or Unwilling Under Matter of C-G-T-

Defeating the Relocation Finding

✅ What To Do Now

Conclusion

🔄 Updates

D.C. Circuit Kills Trump’s Border Invasion Removal Order in RAICES v. Mullin — Every Summary Deportation Without Asylum Review Violates Federal

D.C. Circuit Kills Trump’s Border Invasion Removal Order in RAICES v. Mullin — Every Summary Deportation Without Asylum Review Violates Federal Law

The Short Version

The Statutory Framework

Rejecting the Government’s Counter-Arguments

🔴 Immediate Removal Defense

🟡 Withholding and CAT Claims Now

🟢 Asylum Applications Remain Legally Protected

🔵 Regulatory Rulemaking Watch

⚫ The Dissent Is a Roadmap for the Next Move

Second Circuit: Long-Term EWI Residents Are Not “Seeking Admission” — Bond Hearings Required | Cunha v. Freden

Second Circuit: Long-Term Interior Residents Are Not “Seeking Admission” — Bond Hearings Required, Circuit Split Now Open

🧑 The Man Behind the Case

⚖️ The Ruling

Plain Language First

The Statutory Framework

The Counter-Arguments, Rejected

📊 What This Actually Does: The Detention Map

🚨 What the Fifth Circuit Said — And Why It’s Wrong

🏛️ Practice Advisory: What This Means in the Second Circuit

✅ EWI Interior Arrests — Connecticut, New York, Vermont

🔢 What To Do Now

🏁 Conclusion

DACA Doesn’t End Removal — BIA Reverses IJ Who Terminated Proceedings Without Weighing DHS Opposition

👤 The Human Story: Diego Hernandez Garcia, Maryville, Tennessee

📐 The Three-Way Squeeze

⚖️ Ruling One: DACA Doesn’t Close the Courtroom

📄 Ruling Two: The Pipeline for SIJ Deferred Action Is Cut Off

⚖️ Ruling Three: The Crime Bar Bites Your Most Recent Arrival

🎯 What This Actually Does

🔍 The Fatal Flaws in This Framework

🧑‍⚖️ Practice Advisory: What This Means for Your Clients

✅ What To Do Now

Concrete Steps — In Order of Urgency

🔚 Conclusion

🔄 Updates

Phone: 312-714-2800

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

RSS Feed

Links