The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued 76 precedential decisions since January 2025. Sixty-five were unfavorable to respondents, one was favorable, and ten were neutral or primarily procedural. That is an 86% unfavorable rate in the Board’s published law.

This is not a random sample of immigration adjudication. Precedent decisions are selected opinions that guide immigration judges nationwide. They are the cases the Board chooses to publish, and publication itself is part of policy signaling. In practical terms, these 76 decisions show where the adjudicatory center of gravity sits right now: stricter standards for relief, more limits on bond and continuances, and repeated correction of immigration judges who granted relief too broadly.

Data source for this analysis is a compiled set of BIA precedential decisions from 2025 forward, with holdings coded by category and immigrant-favorability. For primary materials, see EOIR’s BIA precedent decisions page and case-level coverage on HammondLaw Immigration Database.

The topline pattern is not subtle: asylum/CAT and procedure account for more than half the docket

Out of 76 precedential decisions:

  • 21 (27.6%) were in Asylum/Withholding/CAT
  • 20 (26.3%) were Procedural/Due Process
  • 13 (17.1%) were Bond/Detention
  • 7 (9.2%) were Crimmigration
  • 6 (7.9%) were Cancellation of Removal
  • 4 (5.3%) were general discretionary decisions
  • 3 (3.9%) were Particular Social Group decisions specifically
  • 2 (2.6%) were Fraud/Misrepresentation

More than 70% of decisions fall into asylum/CAT, procedure, and detention. That concentration tells practitioners where the Board is doing the most active lawmaking under Trump 2.0: threshold eligibility standards, evidentiary burdens, and docket-control rules.

The one favorable decision in the set, Matter of N-N-B-, 29 I&N Dec. 79, remanded after finding the immigration judge used the wrong CAT legal standard. Even that favorable outcome is narrow and technical.

Asylum and CAT precedent is narrowing pathways through burdens of proof and specificity demands

The largest category, asylum/withholding/CAT, shows a consistent pattern: the Board is policing nexus, government involvement, and individualized risk with high rigor, then reversing grants that rely on generalized country conditions or inferential leaps.

In Matter of C-I-R-H- & H-S-V-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 114, the Board said explicit statements from persecutors are not required for nexus, but still insisted on concrete non-speculative evidence connecting harm to protected ground. In Matter of K-S-H-, 29 I&N Dec. 307, one police report without additional evidence of collusion or inability/unwillingness was treated as insufficient. In Matter of E-M-F-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 379, death threats were framed as rarely enough on their own unless immediately credible and executable.

CAT decisions are even more restrictive in tone. Matter of M-S-I-, 29 I&N Dec. 61 and Matter of O-A-R-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 30 emphasize that CAT acquiescence requires more governmental complicity than asylum’s unable-or-unwilling standard. Matter of A-A-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 38, A-A-F-V-, 29 I&N Dec. 118, S-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 136, W-F-, 29 I&N Dec. 319, J-C-A-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 331, O-Y-A-E-, 29 I&N Dec. 190, and J-A-, 29 I&N Dec. 253 all reject CAT protection where the Board viewed evidence as generalized, anecdotal, or not sufficiently individualized.

Even where danger is plausible in broad terms, the Board is requiring claimant-specific proof that links this respondent to this risk under the correct legal framework. That approach does not eliminate CAT relief, but it raises the documentation and expert-evidence burden substantially.

Two additional asylum-bar decisions reinforce the same direction. Matter of D-G-B-L-, 29 I&N Dec. 392 holds the serious nonpolitical crime bar has no duress exception. Matter of L-T-A-, 29 I&N Dec. 362 applies firm resettlement concepts expansively where respondents had durable legal rights in third countries.

Practically, this means that asylum/CAT litigation is becoming less about broad country narratives and more about record architecture: corroboration, expert methodology, and precise legal framing that survives Board review.

Procedural precedent is doing policy work by accelerating cases and constraining off-ramps

The procedural category is almost as large as asylum/CAT, and many of these decisions are outcome-determinative in real dockets.

Several decisions tighten filing, briefing, and reopening rules. Matter of F-B-G-M- & J-E-M-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 52 strengthens presumptions around electronic service through ECAS. Matter of Iskandarani, 29 I&N Dec. 26 confirms appeal deadlines run from oral decision date, not later mailed summaries. Matter of D-E-B-, 29 I&N Dec. 83 treats materially different supplemental reopening claims as separate motions. Matter of B-S-H-, 29 I&N Dec. 313 limits VAWA-related reopening waivers to timing, not numerical bars.

Other cases reduce opportunities to pause or terminate proceedings. Matter of J-A-F-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 195 disfavors continuances based on speculative future eligibility. Matter of B-N-K-, 29 I&N Dec. 96 centers adjudicatory completion as the primary administrative closure factor. Matter of J-A-N-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 287 bars discretionary termination in withholding-only proceedings. Matter of Cahuec Tzalam, 29 I&N Dec. 300 reverses administrative closure where SIJ prima facie showings were weak and visa availability distant.

Notice and in absentia doctrine also moved in a stricter direction. Matter of Laparra-Deleon, 29 I&N Dec. 389 reinstates the Board’s view that a compliant hearing notice can sustain in absentia removal even after a defective NTA in circuits without contrary precedent. Matter of Laurent Castro, 29 I&N Dec. 419 reverses an IJ who continued proceedings rather than entering in absentia removal when notice and removability proof were present.

The cumulative effect is straightforward: fewer procedural pressure-release valves, tighter compliance expectations, and faster conversion of nonappearance or pleading posture into removal outcomes.

Bond and detention precedent leans strongly toward custody and limited IJ discretion

Bond/detention is the third-largest category, and it is overwhelmingly restrictive.

In this set, bond rulings repeatedly affirm danger or flight-risk findings on records involving criminal conduct, alleged trafficking, address inconsistencies, probation materials, or vulnerable victims: Beltrand-Rodriguez, 29 I&N Dec. 76, C-M-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 141, Akhmedov, 29 I&N Dec. 166, Salas Pena, 29 I&N Dec. 173, Cotrufo, 29 I&N Dec. 264, Dubon Miranda, 29 I&N Dec. 335, and Rodriguez Pena, 29 I&N Dec. 358.

Beyond individual danger findings, the Board is also limiting legal pathways into bond jurisdiction. Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 and Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 read §235 detention broadly for arriving/present-without-admission populations and reject IJ authority to grant bond in those postures. Matter of E-Y-F-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 103 says a pending withholding grant on appeal does not overcome flight-risk factors for release.

The category has one clearly procedural balancing case, Matter of Dobrotvorskii, 29 I&N Dec. 211, which recognizes sponsors as relevant to flight-risk analysis and allows consideration of relevant evidence regardless of filing party. That is meaningful for advocacy strategy, but it did not alter the larger trendline.

There is also cross-category spillover through Matter of Ghanbari, 29 I&N Dec. 376, where mandatory detention analysis under terrorism-support grounds further narrows release possibilities in affected cases.

For practitioners, this is a record-development environment where mitigation evidence has to be unusually specific, internally consistent, and tied directly to danger/flight factors, not just equities in the abstract.

Cancellation and discretionary decisions emphasize adverse conduct over rehabilitation narratives

Cancellation of removal and general discretion decisions together account for 10 cases. Every one was coded unfavorable.

Cancellation-specific decisions include Bain, 29 I&N Dec. 72, Buri Mora, 29 I&N Dec. 186, Jimenez-Ayala, 29 I&N Dec. 325, Palma-Olvera, 29 I&N Dec. 355, Kim, 29 I&N Dec. 339, and Lema Mizhirumbay, 29 I&N Dec. 351. Across them, the Board repeatedly places substantial weight on criminal history, recency, child-endangerment allegations, workplace safety violations, and DUI-related character concerns, while discounting remorse or rehabilitation where records are thin or recent.

General discretionary rulings like Gonzalez Jimenez, 29 I&N Dec. 129, Garcia-Flores, 29 I&N Dec. 230, McDonald, 29 I&N Dec. 249, and Roque-Izada, 29 I&N Dec. 106 follow the same logic. Conduct involving fraud indicators, child-victim contexts, and criminally serious facts is treated as dominant in the balancing test, and the Board is willing to reverse IJs it sees as underweighting those negatives.

This is consistent with a broader adjudicatory posture: discretion is not disappearing, but positive equities must be unusually well-documented and often longstanding to overcome serious adverse facts.

Crimmigration, PSG, and fraud cases show doctrinal consolidation in favor of removability and bars

The smaller categories are still important because they anchor future arguments.

In crimmigration, decisions like Dor, 29 I&N Dec. 20, Felix-Figueroa, 29 I&N Dec. 157, Frias Ulloa, 29 I&N Dec. 259, Mayorga Ipina, 29 I&N Dec. 110, and E-A-S-O-, 29 I&N Dec. 422 generally strengthen DHS positions on controlled-substance and moral-turpitude consequences, burden allocation, and particularly serious crime framing. Baeza-Galindo, 29 I&N Dec. 1 further narrows single-scheme arguments under removability analysis.

Particular social group jurisprudence is similarly restrictive. K-E-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 145 rejects sex or sex-plus-nationality formulations as overbroad and insufficiently particular. L-A-L-T-, 29 I&N Dec. 269 rejects “perceived Salvadoran gang members” as non-cognizable. O-A-R-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 30 imposes strict requirements when PSGs are built around former-status formulations, distinguishing animus from retribution for past conduct.

Fraud/misrepresentation decisions include M-C-C-, 29 I&N Dec. 401, which finds willful material misrepresentation by omission and denies discretionary fraud waiver relief, and Jin, 29 I&N Dec. 441, where substantial marriage-fraud allegations prompted return of the record to USCIS for further action.

These holdings matter beyond their raw count because they harden default rules on removability and bars. Once those defaults are set in precedent, they influence outcomes in much larger volumes of unpublished cases.

This body of precedent reflects institutional priorities as much as legal interpretation

The Board decides which disputes deserve publication, and publication creates nationwide instruction.

From that perspective, this docket does three things at once:

  • It raises evidentiary rigor for relief claims, especially asylum/CAT.
  • It narrows procedural mechanisms that slow or divert removals.
  • It validates detention and adverse-discretion outcomes in fact patterns involving criminality, noncompliance, or perceived credibility deficits.

Those priorities align with an enforcement-forward adjudicatory approach under Trump 2.0. The results are visible in both content and composition: high publication volume in asylum/CAT and procedure, very limited favorable immigrant outcomes, and repeated reversal of IJ grants.

This does not mean every court will follow every inference identically. Circuit law constraints remain, and several of these issues are likely to keep generating appellate friction. But at the administrative level, the Board has made its direction clear.

Practical implications for practitioners

First, build asylum/CAT records as if Board review is inevitable. Generalized country reports are not enough. Connect protected-ground nexus, government role, and individualized risk with corroboration that directly answers current BIA formulations.

Second, treat procedure as merits. ECAS service, deadline calculation, continuance requests, reopening posture, and in absentia exposure are not technical side issues. They are often dispositive.

Third, in bond and discretionary cases, front-load adverse-factor mitigation with documentation that is specific, chronological, and independently verifiable. Rehabilitation claims without robust proof are repeatedly losing.

Fourth, preserve appellate issues cleanly. Several current precedents push aggressively against relief-favorable interpretations, and circuit-level correction remains one of the few realistic counterweights.

Data source note: Analysis based on 76 BIA precedential decisions issued from January 2025 through February 20, 2026, coded by case category and immigrant-favorability. Primary sources include EOIR’s precedent decisions repository and case-level tracking at HammondLaw Immigration Database.

Author: Chris Hammond is an immigration attorney focused on removal defense and complex federal immigration litigation.