Case Law

What if you were beaten and detained for protesting the Taliban — but a federal court still ruled you can be deported? That is exactly what happened to Hayatullah Zahid, an Afghan man who worked for his country's Ministry of Education. In October 2026, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied his petitions for review, upholding the Board of Immigration Appeals' refusal to grant him protection under the Convention Against Torture.

What if you missed your immigration court hearing and filed a sworn statement explaining why — but the judge simply doesn't believe you? The Board of Immigration Appeals answered that question on October 19, 2026: immigration judges are not required to accept your affidavit as true, even if your story is not obviously impossible. The ruling directly affects anyone in removal proceedings who missed a hearing and wants to reopen their case.

The Fourth Circuit denied asylum to a Jordanian man in October 2026, ruling that his abusers targeted him for personal reasons — not because of his membership in a protected group. The decision, Qaiymah v. Blanche, shows how the "nexus" requirement can defeat an asylum claim even when the immigration court believes the applicant's account of serious harm.

Two members of a dark web ring that sold millions of fake Xanax pills had their federal prison sentences upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2026. For immigrants, the case is a stark reminder: a federal drug conspiracy conviction — even one resolved by a guilty plea — triggers near-automatic deportation and permanently blocks most paths to legal status in the US.

You live in New York City, and you've heard that the federal government was trying to force local police to hand immigrants over to ICE — now a federal judge has shut that effort down. US District Judge Ramón E. Reyes Jr. dismissed the Trump administration's lawsuit against New York City's sanctuary laws, ruling that no federal law can force a city to participate in immigration enforcement. The decision is a direct win for immigrants who rely on sanctuary protections to access hospitals, schools, and police without fear of deportation.

The Justice Department charged 16 non-citizens — most of them green card holders — with illegal voting in federal elections across North Carolina, New York, and Idaho. The charges, announced in October 2026, include voting by a non-citizen and falsely claiming US citizenship to register. A conviction on either charge can lead to deportation and a permanent bar from naturalization.

A Chinese-owned energy company spent years trying to connect a Texas solar project to the state's electric grid — and lost, twice: first at ERCOT, then in federal court. The Fifth Circuit ruled in October 2026 that Texas's ban on Chinese-owned firms accessing critical infrastructure does not violate federal law, even when CFIUS has already reviewed the same company's investments. The decision sets a precedent that states can go further than federal foreign-investment rules.

Momodou Jatta, a Gambian university professor, was beaten into a coma by police in 2014 after a student reported him for quoting Barack Obama in a lecture. He fled to the US and applied for asylum. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied his petition in October 2026, ruling that a change of government in The Gambia eliminated his legal claim to protection — even though the court believed his account of torture.

What if you already served your sentence and only then learned your lawyer's advice was wrong — and that you are now facing deportation? That is exactly what happened to Mara Morillo. In October 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the vacating of her drug conviction after finding her attorney told her she could "work out" her immigration status after pleading guilty — advice that was flat-out wrong and made her immediately deportable.

A legal standard that makes it easier for immigrants and others to win emergency court orders against the government is still standing in the western United States. On October 16, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reconsider its 'serious questions' test for preliminary injunctions — the orders that can pause deportations or policy enforcement while a lawsuit proceeds. Ten judges dissented, warning the standard conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and may not survive much longer.

The Hawaii Supreme Court rejected an appeal on October 16, 2026, in a fraud lawsuit brought by Chinese and Japanese immigrant investors against an EB-5 regional center network. The plaintiffs — more than two dozen people — allege they lost money through a scheme involving real estate partnerships and immigration consulting firms. The ruling keeps the case alive against the defendants.

If you are in removal proceedings and waiting for a U visa decision, the rules just changed against you. The Board of Immigration Appeals ruled in October 2026 that immigration judges no longer have to presume you deserve a delay — even if your U visa petition looks strong. The decision overturns a 14-year-old standard and could speed up deportation orders for crime victims still waiting on USCIS.

A federal court in Washington, DC dismissed an EB-5 investor's lawsuit against USCIS in October 2026, ruling that courts lack the power to force the agency to speed up green card processing. The plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, had waited two years for a decision on his investor visa petition with no result. The ruling signals that APA delay lawsuits over EB-5 applications face a steep legal barrier in DC federal courts.

An Ohio appeals court ruled in October 2026 that a non-citizen cannot reopen a 1998 guilty plea over deportation consequences after waiting nearly two decades to challenge it. Thanh Luu, who faced removal proceedings since 1999, filed multiple motions to vacate his pleas — and lost every time for failing to appeal earlier denials. The ruling is a stark reminder that delays in challenging a conviction can permanently end an immigrant's legal options.

Mitra Vahida, a dual citizen of Finland and Iran, waited more than 18 months for a decision on her F-1 student visa after a US Embassy interview — then sued the State Department to force a ruling. In October 2026, a federal court in Washington, DC dismissed her case, finding it lacked jurisdiction to compel consular action. The decision is a stark reminder of how little legal recourse visa applicants have when their cases stall in administrative processing.