BIA Rules Judges Can Doubt Your Affidavit in Court

The case is called Matter of J-E-D-C-, decided October 19, 2026 (BIA Interim Decision #4261). A man from Mexico was ordered removed after he did not appear at his October 27, 2025 immigration court hearing in Phoenix. He later filed a motion to reopen — a formal request asking the court to cancel the removal order and give him another chance. He submitted a declaration saying he did not understand that the date on his notice to appear was his actual hearing date, and that he believed he would receive a separate notice later. The immigration judge denied the motion, finding his explanation unbelievable. The BIA dismissed his appeal.

Why This Decision Changes the Rules for Motions to Reopen

Before this ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — which covers California, Arizona, Washington, and several other western states — required immigration judges to accept the facts in a sworn affidavit as true, unless those facts were "inherently unbelievable." That standard gave respondents a meaningful advantage: if your story was plausible on its face, the judge had to treat it as fact at the motion stage. The BIA rejected that standard in October 2026. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 decision in INS v. Abudu and its 2021 decision in Garland v. Ming Dai, the BIA held that Supreme Court precedent controls over Ninth Circuit precedent when the two conflict. Under Abudu, a motion to reopen is more like a motion for a new trial in a criminal case — the person asking to reopen carries a heavy burden, and the judge is not required to draw every inference in their favor.

The practical effect is significant. If you miss a hearing and file a motion to reopen with a declaration explaining why, an immigration judge can now weigh your credibility and reject your account — even if your story is not obviously impossible. The BIA also noted that judges may consider the timing of claims: a story told for the first time in a motion to reopen may be viewed more skeptically than one raised earlier in proceedings. This ruling applies in cases arising in the Ninth Circuit, but the BIA's reasoning is likely to influence immigration courts nationwide.

The respondent in this case had previously appeared in Phoenix immigration court as an unaccompanied child, which the judge found relevant to whether his claimed confusion about the hearing notice was believable. His motion to reopen was filed on April 24, 2026 — within the 180-day window the law allows — but the immigration judge denied it on May 13, 2026, and the BIA upheld that denial. His applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture were also not reopened, because the judge found he had not shown a colorable claim for relief.

What to Do If You Missed an Immigration Court Hearing

• Act fast. The law gives you 180 days from the date of the removal order to file a motion to reopen based on exceptional circumstances — missing that window almost certainly ends your options.
• Gather strong supporting evidence. Under this new BIA standard, your sworn statement alone may not be enough. Collect documents, medical records, police reports, or witness statements that corroborate your explanation for missing the hearing.
• Do not assume your story will be taken at face value. An immigration judge can now question your credibility even if your account sounds plausible. A well-documented motion is far stronger than one that relies only on your declaration.
• Contact an immigration lawyer immediately. Motions to reopen are complex, the deadlines are strict, and this ruling makes the legal standard harder to meet without professional help.

Related: our step-by-step guide — “Immigration Court Rulings”.