On January 5, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision in which it held that:

1. The “complete helplessness” standard is still applicable as it was adopted in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316, at 337 (A.G. 2018) (A-B- I) for assessing the government’s ability or willingness to protect against private persecution, despite being vacated by Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) (A-B- III).
2. The BIA’s failure to require the DHS to file an appellate brief does not amount to impartiality or non-compliance with governing regulations.
3. The regulation governing decisions by a single BIA member, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e), is constitutional and does not violate due process.
4. An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a discretionary decision by a single BIA member not to refer an appeal to a three-member BIA panel.

On December 5, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal withdrew its previous decision in Argueta-Hernandez v. Garland (July 10, 2023) and substituted a new precedent decision in which it reversed its original determination and held that:

The 30-day filing deadline relating to petitions for review set forth in section 242(b)(1) of the Act is not jurisdictional and consequently does not bar appellate review of the BIA’s denial of the Petitioner’s withholding of removal and CAT claims.

On December 1, 2023, the Board of Immigration Appeals published a precedent decision in which it held that:

When an alleged persecutor targets members of a certain family as a means of achieving some other ultimate goal unrelated to a protected ground, family membership is incidental or subordinate to that other ultimate goal and therefore not one central reason for the harm.

On September 8, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision in which it held that:

The application of Matter of Fuentes, 19 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988), in which the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that “dangers faced by policemen as a result of that status alone are not ones faced on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,” is not limited to persecution arising from police duties and military operations.

On September 12, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision in which it held that:

A particular social group defined as “El Salvadoran business owners” is not cognizable as a ground for a persecution claim in the context of United States asylum law.

On August 7, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision in which it held:

Evidence that a nuclear family is socially distinct; in other words, perceived by society as a whole as set apart or separate from the rest of the society in question, is necessary to qualify it as a cognizable particular social group to justify a persecution claim in the context of an asylum or withholding application.

On July 9, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision in which it determined that:

A conviction for the offense of Injury to a Child proscribed in § 22.04(a) of the Texas Penal Code is properly classified as a “crime of child abuse” and, therefore, justifies a deportation charge under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.

On June 22, 2023, the United States Supreme Court published a precedent decision in which it held that an offense “relating to obstruction of justice” under section 101(a)(43)(S) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending to be properly classified as an aggravated felony.

On June 15, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision in which it held that:

1. Participation of reappointed temporary BIA members in a BIA decision does not render the decision ultra vires (i.e. an act done without legal authority).
2. An administrative determination that an alien lacks good moral character and is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1) of the Act is an “authoritative decision” outside the scope of appellate review, based on Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, at 1621 (2022).

On May 11, 2023, the United States Supreme Court published a precedent decision in which it determined that:

Section 242(d)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended ("the Act") which states “A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right” is not jurisdictional and does not deprive an appellate court of jurisdiction; and,

it is not necessary to request discretionary forms of administrative review, like reconsideration of an unfavorable BIA determination, in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement set forth in section 242(d)(1) of the Act.

On May 30, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision in which it concluded that:

For the purpose of categorical aggravated felony classification of receiving stolen property under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3925(a) in Pennsylvania, “reason to believe the property is stolen” (as appears in case law) is the equivalent of “believing it had been stolen” (as appears in the 1972 text of the Pennsylvania statute).

In other words, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3925(a) in Pennsylvania requires proof of an actual subjective belief that the property received by the defendant was stolen, as opposed to an objective “reason to believe” the received property was stolen.  Barradas Jacome v. Attorney Gen. United States, 39 F.4th 111, at 123 (3^rd Cir. 2022); De Leon-Reynoso v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 633, at 636 (3d Cir. 2002).      

Therefore, the offense of receiving stolen property in Pennsylvania is a categorical match with the generic federal definition of receipt of stolen property within the meaning of section 101(a)(43)(G) of the Act and properly classifies as an aggravated felony.

On April 4, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision in which it held that:

Adjustment of status decisions made by USCIS outside the context of removal proceedings are not final agency actions reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), nor are they final removal actions reviewable in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act.

On April 24, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision holding that:

On May 2, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision in which it determined that:

On March 24, 2023, the Board of Immigration Appeals published a precedent decision in which it clarified Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 74 (BIA 2020) by holding that:

The controlling circuit law in immigration court proceedings is the law governing the geographic location of the immigration court where venue lies (i.e.  where jurisdiction vests and proceedings commence upon the filing of a charging document, or the immigration court to which an Immigration Judge grants a change of venue); not necessarily the geographic location where an Immigration Judge conducts court proceedings.

Matter of Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 693 (BIA 2023) Interim Decision #4060.

On April 7, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision in which it affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeal's determination that:

For the purpose of establishing continuous physical presence in the United States to qualify for Temporary Protected Status under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, an 111-day absence from the United States was not “of short duration and reasonably calculated to accomplish” the purpose of visiting a sick parent where: (1) the applicant terminated employment in the United States before departure; (2) waited thirteen years to visit since the parent’s serious illness diagnosis; and (3) evidence indicates that the parent’s death was not imminent.

On March 3, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision in which it held that:

Robbery under Texas law can be classified as an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a “theft offense,” even though Texas law includes attempted theft in its definition of robbery.  See Texas Penal Code §§ 29.01, 29.03.

On February 23, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision in which it held that: 
 

The "categorical approach (as opposed to the "modified categorical" approach) to classification of "crimes involving moral turpitude" applies in the wake of Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016).

Zamaro-Silvero v. Garland (February 23, 2023)   No. 21- 60324.

On February 20, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published a precedent decision in which it held that:

1. Discretionary decisions to deny cancellation of removal under section 240A(a) of the Act relating to lawful permanent residents are standardless and unreviewable pursuant to section 242(a)(2)(B) of the Act. See Monsonyem v. Garland, 36 F.4th 639, at 646 n.1 (5th Cir. 2022) (per curiam).
2. The exhaustion requirement under section 242(d)(1) of the Act applies to claims alleging Board of Immigration Appeals’ procedural errors that fall short of due process violations.

On February 6, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal published its first 2023 precedent decision related to asylum in which it determined that:

When an Immigration Judge does not require submission of specific corroborating evidence, the procedural requirements relating to corroborating evidence established in Matter of L-A-C- 26 I&N Dec. 516 (BIA 2015) do not apply and the Immigration Judge is permitted to analyze why an asylum applicant's testimony was not corroborated by the evidence provided and also conclude that such evidence would have been reasonably available.

However, when an Immigration Judge requires the submission of specific corroborating evidence (e.g. a document, a witness statement or physical evidence) the Immigration Judge should:  

1. give the applicant “an opportunity to explain why he could not reasonably obtain such evidence,”
2. “ensure that the applicant’s explanation is included in the record,” and
3. “clearly state for the record whether the [applicant’s] explanation is sufficient . . . .”

See Matter of L-A-C-, at 518–522.  See also Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, at 770 (5th Cir. 2020).