Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13,435
cases (
2,314 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case:
Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008).
Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008).
· cites it 22× “the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant's eligibility for asylum.”
Carlos Bringas-Rodriguez v. Jefferson Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 12× “8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1). An applicant qualifies as a refugee if he “is unable or unwilling to return to his home country because of a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Carlos Bastardo-Vale v. Attorney Gen. United States, 934 F.3d 255 (3rd Cir. 2019).
· cites it 30× “Today we decide whether the phrase “particularly serious crime” as used in both the asylum and withholding of removal statutes, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 (b)(2), 1231(b)(3), includes, but is not limited to, aggravated felonies.”
Shi Liang Lin v. United States Dep't of Just., 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007).
· cites it 14× “See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1)(B)(i) (stating that "[t]he burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee").”
Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Dep't of Just., Attorney Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006).
· cites it 10× “See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(B). He further found that she had not established either “changed circumstances which materially affect[ed][her] eligibility for asylum” or the existence of “extraordinary circumstances” that would have excused her tardiness in filing her application.”
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 11× “231 , 303 (2005) (codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 (b)(l)(B)(iii) (asylum); 1231(b)(3)(C) (adopting the standard in 8 U.”
Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Dep't of Just., Attorney Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2006).
· cites it 12× “See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(B). He further found that she had not established either “changed circumstances which materially affect[ed] [her] eligibility for asylum” or the existence of “extraordinary circumstances” that would have excused her tardiness in filing her application.”
Manuel Guzman-Vazquez v. William P. Barr, 959 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 16× “First, did the IJ and BIA correctly apply the corroboration requirement set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1)(B)(ii)? Second, did substantial evidence support the IJ’s and BIA’s determination that Guzman inadequately explained why he No.”
Al Otro Lado v. Chad Wolf, 952 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 13× “First, immigration officers have a duty to inspect: “All aliens . . . who are applicants for admission or otherwise seeking admission or readmission to or transit through the United States shall be inspected by immigration officers.”
Garcia-Garcia v. Sessions, 856 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2017).
· cites it 20× “Congress codified the right to apply for asylum in 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(1), which provides: "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States .”
Yali Wang v. Jefferson Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 8× “Rather, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant,” as well as “the inherent plausibility” of the applicant’s account and the…”
Rolando Augustine Castellano-Chacon v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 341 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 13× “II Application for Asylum Section 208(a)(2)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(B), requires aliens to apply for asylum within one year of their arrival in the United States, but allows an untimely application to be considered if there are changed circumstances materially…”
Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987).
· cites it 10× “Section 208(a) of the Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1158 (a), authorizes the Attorney General, in his discretion, to grant asylum to an alien who is unable or unwilling to return to his home country "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,…”
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Donald Trump, 993 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 10× “]” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(1). The panel explained that, because the Rule requires migrants to enter the United States at ports of entry to preserve their eligibility for asylum, it is effectively a categorical ban on migrants who use a method of entry explicitly authorized by…”
Ming Dai v. Jefferson Sessions, 884 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 15× “” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1)(B)(ii). In determining whether the testimony is persuasive, “the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record.”
Ud Din v. Garland, 72 F.4th 411 (2d Cir. 2023).
· cites it 11× “, deliberately and materially false, asylum applications, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (d)(6), because those applications were untimely and, thus, their concededly false statements could not have been material to a matter properly before the agency for decision.”
Nancy Marouf v. Loretta Lynch, 811 F.3d 174 (6th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 14× “16-18 ; and asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 . “To prevail on a petition for withholding of removal under the INA, [§ 1231(b)(3)], an alien must show that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution .”
Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 14× “II Gomis contends first that even though she did not file her application for asylum *358 within one year of the date of her arrival in the United States, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(B), "she meets both the extraordinary circumstances and changed circumstances…”
Gonzalez Ex Rel. Gonzalez v. Reno, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (S.D. Fla. 2000).
· cites it 30× “Plaintiff most strenuously urges that the INS decision not to accept the application for asylum filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 is the basis for his Complaint — not any purported withdrawal of the application for admission.”
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007).
· cites it 8× “PER CURIAM: Recently, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) set down standards for re *271 viewing determinations that an applicant’s asylum application was frivolous under section 208(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 (d)(4), (6). In re Y-L-…”
Wei Sun v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, 883 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 2018).
· cites it 9× “Sun entered the United States on a visitor visa in 2007 and subsequently filed a timely application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1231(b)(3), respectively, and for relief under the Convention Against…”
Raul Barajas-Romero v. Loretta E. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 5× “For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control…”
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 9× “See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(l)(B)(iii) (“[A] trier, of fact may base a credibility determination on .”
Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 10× “The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA" or the "Board") affirmed in a separate opinion, concluding that Dhital's first asylum application was a frivolous filing that permanently barred him from obtaining such relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (d)(6). In the alternative, the BIA…”
Mohamed Abdille v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 242 F.3d 477 (3rd Cir. 2001).
· cites it 7× “” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1). Section 1101(a)(42)(A) defines “refugee” as any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or…”
Jamal Ali Farah v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 5× “See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (d)(6). In this petition for review, Farah first challenges the IJ’s credibility determination underlying his removal order.”
Morshed Alam v. Merrick Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 6× “te that the en banc court should consider whether there is a reason to limit consideration of the circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s lie to only cases that fall within the Akinmade exception, or whether the court should decide whether a petitioner’s lie constitutes…”
Babacar Gaye v. Loretta E. Lynch, 788 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 19× “Aliens may apply for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(1). The opportunity to seek asylum “shall not apply to an alien unless the alien demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the…”
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. William Barr, 994 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 16× “BARR With respect to the likelihood of success on the merits, the government justified the Rule by relying on 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(2)(C), which provides that the “Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section,…”
Rosa Avelar-Oliva v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen, 954 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 7× “8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1)(B)(iii). The IJ and BIA “may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.”
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008).
· cites it 5× “and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim,” see 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1)(B)(iii) 2 (emphasis added), abrogated our holding in Secaida-Rosales v.”
Singh v. Holder, 656 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 16× “8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(B). The Department of Homeland Security referred his application to the immigration court and placed him in removal proceedings.”
Xiao Min Chen v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 22× “Consequently, the IJ found that, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (d)(6), Chen had knowingly filed a frivolous application for asylum.”
Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018).
· cites it 4× “To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner must establish that he or she is a "refugee," 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1)(B)(i), that is, a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on…”
Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 8× “” However, the REAL ID Act’s revision of 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1) now instructs the trier of fact in asylum proceed- ings to “consider[ ] the totality of the circumstances” when making a cred- ibility determination.”
Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2020).
· cites it 4×
Ying Liu v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 555 F.3d 145 (3rd Cir. 2009).
· cites it 6× “Accordingly, we conclude that 8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(2)(D) allows successive asylum applications only within the 90-day reopening period for orders denying asylum unless the alien can show changed country conditions on the required accompanying motion to reopen.”
Pe Paul Goromou v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 721 F.3d 569 (8th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 19× “Goromou contends that the BIA legally erred because “8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) creates two separate exceptions to the one[-]year deadline — changed circumstances and extraordinary circumstances — and an applicant must only establish one to excuse an untimely application.”
Ordonez Azmen v. Barr, 965 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2020).
· cites it 9× “” 8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(2)(D). As 15 we know, the “changed“ circumstances exception in § 1158(a)(2)(D) does not 16 similarly require that the “changed circumstances” relate to the delay.”
J-y-c, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260 (BIA 2007).
· cites it 3×
Santos Iraheta-Martinez v. Merrick Garland, 12 F.4th 942 (9th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 3× “Under 8 U.S.C § 1158(a): “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court.”
C-g-t, 28 I. & N. Dec. 740 (BIA 2023).
· cites it 5×
C-w-l, 24 I. & N. Dec. 346 (BIA 2007).
· cites it 3×
Zepeda-Lopez v. Garland, 38 F.4th 315 (2d Cir. 2022).
· cites it 6× “§ 1158 (a)(2)(A), (c)(2)(C) (safe third country provision); see also 8 U.S.C § 1158(c)(2)(E) (termination of asylum upon acquisition of a new nationality).”
A-h, 23 I. & N. Dec. 774 (BIA 2005).
· cites it 4×
Irfan Ali v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 931 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(A). Under the statute, a "refugee" is "one who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or…”
Kueviakoe v. United States Attorney Gen., 567 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 3× “8U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). 2 . We relate Kueviakoe’s testimony, but we make only a limited ruling concerning credibility.”
S-b, 24 I. & N. Dec. 42 (BIA 2006).
· cites it 3×
J-j, 21 I. & N. Dec. 976 (BIA 1997).
· cites it 3×
M-r-m-s, 28 I. & N. Dec. 757 (BIA 2023).
· cites it 5×
Andrei Skripkov v. William P. Barr, 966 F.3d 480 (6th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 4× “” According to Skripkov, the IJ erred in applying the asylum statute’s “one central reason” standard, stated in 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), to his withholding-of- removal claim.”
Y-t-l, 23 I. & N. Dec. 601 (BIA 2003).
· cites it 2×
C-y-z, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915 (BIA 1997).
· cites it 2×
Abdi v. Duke, 280 F. Supp. 3d 373 (W.D.N.Y. 2017).
· cites it 2×
N-m, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526 (BIA 2011).
· cites it 2×
L-e-a, 27 I. & N. Dec. 40 (BIA 2017).
Balachova v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(2)(A)(I) (asylum); see also 8 U.”
L-a-c, 26 I. & N. Dec. 516 (BIA 2015).
· cites it 2×
N-m-a, 22 I. & N. Dec. 312 (BIA 1998).
· cites it 3×
B, 21 I. & N. Dec. 66 (BIA 1995).
· cites it 3×
O-d, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1079 (BIA 1998).
· cites it 2×
H-c-r-c, 28 I. & N. Dec. 809 (BIA 2024).
· cites it 9×
G-c-l, 23 I. & N. Dec. 359 (BIA 2002).
· cites it 2×
J-j-g, 27 I. & N. Dec. 808 (BIA 2020).
A-m, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737 (BIA 2005).
Huli v. Way, 393 F. Supp. 2d 266 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
· cites it 5×
J-s, 24 I. & N. Dec. 520 (BIA 2008).
Pula, 19 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 1987).
· cites it 2×
Y-l, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151 (BIA 2007).
S-l-l, 24 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 2006).
C-c, 23 I. & N. Dec. 899 (BIA 2006).
Abdul R. Almaghzar v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 450 F.3d 415 (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 4× “” However, the REAL ID Act's revision of 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1) now instructs the trier of fact in asylum proceedings to "consider[ ] the totality of the circumstances” when making a credibility determination.”
Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16 (BIA 1989).
F-p-r, 24 I. & N. Dec. 681 (BIA 2008).
· cites it 2×
D-r, 25 I. & N. Dec. 445 (BIA 2011).
S-m-j, 21 I. & N. Dec. 722 (BIA 1997).
X-m-c, 25 I. & N. Dec. 322 (BIA 2010).
· cites it 2×
Z-z-o, 26 I. & N. Dec. 586 (BIA 2015).
Jean, 23 I. & N. Dec. 373 (BIA 2002).
S-h, 23 I. & N. Dec. 462 (BIA 2002).
Yanez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 390 (BIA 2002).
A-k, 24 I. & N. Dec. 275 (BIA 2007).
R-a-m, 25 I. & N. Dec. 657 (BIA 2012).
Liadov, 23 I. & N. Dec. 990 (BIA 2006).
M-b-c, 27 I. & N. Dec. 31 (BIA 2017).
M-m-a, 28 I. & N. Dec. 494 (BIA 2022).
· cites it 3×
Y-c, 23 I. & N. Dec. 286 (BIA 2002).
· cites it 2×
C-v-t, 22 I. & N. Dec. 7 (BIA 1998).
Soleimani, 20 I. & N. Dec. 99 (BIA 1989).
· cites it 2×
M-a-f, 26 I. & N. Dec. 651 (BIA 2015).
· cites it 2×
Y-i-m, 27 I. & N. Dec. 724 (BIA 2019).
A-e-m, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1157 (BIA 1998).
Avilez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 799 (BIA 2005).
Ali v. Reno, 829 F. Supp. 1415 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
· cites it 4×
Y-b, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998).
J-g-p, 27 I. & N. Dec. 642 (BIA 2019).
M-s-i, 29 I. & N. Dec. 61 (BIA 2025).
· cites it 2×
Chang, 20 I. & N. Dec. 38 (BIA 1989).
D-x- & Y-z, 25 I. & N. Dec. 664 (BIA 2012).
· cites it 2×
A-s-j, 25 I. & N. Dec. 893 (BIA 2012).
· cites it 2×
A-s, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1106 (BIA 1998).
D-i-m, 24 I. & N. Dec. 448 (BIA 2008).
V-t-s, 21 I. & N. Dec. 792 (BIA 1997).
A-g-g, 25 I. & N. Dec. 486 (BIA 2011).
Dass, 20 I. & N. Dec. 120 (BIA 1989).
K-a, 23 I. & N. Dec. 661 (BIA 2004).
S-a, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1328 (BIA 2000).
Ruiz-romero, 22 I. & N. Dec. 486 (BIA 1999).
· cites it 2×
R-s-j, 22 I. & N. Dec. 863 (BIA 1999).
· cites it 2×
L-s-j, 21 I. & N. Dec. 973 (BIA 1997).
· cites it 2×
G-g-s, 26 I. & N. Dec. 339 (BIA 2014).
H-g-g, 27 I. & N. Dec. 617 (BIA 2019).
E-f-h-l, 26 I. & N. Dec. 319 (BIA 2018).
R-k-k, 26 I. & N. Dec. 658 (BIA 2015).
D-v, 21 I. & N. Dec. 77 (BIA 1995).
· cites it 2×
A-g, 19 I. & N. Dec. 502 (BIA 1987).
K-s-e, 27 I. & N. Dec. 818 (BIA 2020).
C-a-s-d, 27 I. & N. Dec. 692 (BIA 2019).
M-d, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998).
J-r-r-a, 26 I. & N. Dec. 609 (BIA 2015).
L-k, 23 I. & N. Dec. 677 (BIA 2004).
Zheng v. Holder, 507 F. App'x 755 (10th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 3× “plicant's or witness's account, the consistency between the applicant's or witness's written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such…”
X-p-t, 21 I. & N. Dec. 634 (BIA 1996).
L-v-k, 22 I. & N. Dec. 976 (BIA 1999).
De Leon v. Gonzales, 153 F. App'x 3 (1st Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “See 8U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) (2000). 2 . De Leon’s 1991 asylum application was apparently lost.”
Negusie, 27 I. & N. Dec. 347 (BIA 2018).
F-r-a, 28 I. & N. Dec. 460 (BIA 2022).
K-s, 20 I. & N. Dec. 715 (BIA 1993).
H-m-v, 22 I. & N. Dec. 256 (BIA 1998).
· cites it 2×
M-h, 26 I. & N. Dec. 46 (BIA 2012).
M-w, 25 I. & N. Dec. 748 (BIA 2012).
S-s, 21 I. & N. Dec. 121 (BIA 1995).
E-a, 26 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 2012).
Joel Soriano-Dominguez v. Eric Holder, Jr, U S Att, 354 F. App'x 886 (5th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “” On that basis, he sought asylum pursuant to 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1). The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied the application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) agreed.”
C-a-l, 21 I. & N. Dec. 754 (BIA 1997).
Gonzalez, 19 I. & N. Dec. 682 (BIA 1988).
M-s-b, 26 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 2016).
· cites it 2×
J-s-s, 26 I. & N. Dec. 679 (BIA 2015).
R, 20 I. & N. Dec. 621 (BIA 1992).
R- D, 24 I. & N. Dec. 221 (BIA 2007).
U-h, 23 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2002).
B-b, 22 I. & N. Dec. 309 (BIA 1998).
M-s, 21 I. & N. Dec. 125 (BIA 1995).
W-e-r-b, 27 I. & N. Dec. 795 (BIA 2020).
M-a-c-o, 27 I. & N. Dec. 477 (BIA 2018).
J-g-d-f, 27 I. & N. Dec. 82 (BIA 2017).
B, 20 I. & N. Dec. 427 (BIA 1991).
Ruiz, 20 I. & N. Dec. 91 (BIA 1989).
Tomas, 19 I. & N. Dec. 464 (BIA 1987).
Aben v. Garland, 113 F.4th 457 (5th Cir. 2024).
· cites it 3× “33 See 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (“Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the…”
S-m-h, 29 I. & N. Dec. 412 (BIA 2026).
· cites it 12× “INA § 208(d)(4), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(4). On appeal, the respondent contends that she was not given sufficient notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous application because the presiding Immigration Judge in 1999 did not provide the warning either orally or in writing.”
E-a-s-o, 29 I. & N. Dec. 422 (BIA 2026).
· cites it 3×
M-k, 29 I. & N. Dec. 556 (BIA 2026).
· cites it 3×
Magdalena v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 139 F. App'x 467 (3rd Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “2003) (“8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), provides that ‘no court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination by the Attorney General under paragraph [ (a) ](2),’ which includes the provision relating to whether extraordinary circumstances warrant waiving the one year time…”
S-s, 21 I. & N. Dec. 900 (BIA 1997).
C-p-y, 29 I. & N. Dec. 610 (BIA 2026).
· cites it 15× “610 (BIA 2026) Interim Decision #4191 The asylum statute uses the word “arrival” in another provision, namely the 1-year time limit for filing an asylum application in section 208(a)(2)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2024). The INA requires an asylum application to be…”
D, 20 I. & N. Dec. 827 (BIA 1994).
Izatula, 20 I. & N. Dec. 149 (BIA 1990).
G-c-i, 29 I. & N. Dec. 176 (BIA 2025).
· cites it 13×
E-p, 21 I. & N. Dec. 860 (BIA 1997).
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
· cites it 34× “Our conclusion hinged on the explicit recognition that the public-health emergency authority in Section 265 conflicted with immigration law’s requirement, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), that “[foreign individuals]—even those who enter the country illegally—[be allowed] to apply for…”
K-e-s-g, 29 I. & N. Dec. 145 (BIA 2025).
· cites it 2×
D-e-b, 29 I. & N. Dec. 83 (BIA 2025).
· cites it 2× “See INA §§ 208(b)(2), 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1), 1231(b)(3) (2018).”
P-s-h, 26 I. & N. Dec. 329 (BIA 2014).
S-k, 24 I. & N. Dec. 289 (BIA 2007).
E-r-a-l, 27 I. & N. Dec. 767 (BIA 2020).
H-a-a-v, 29 I. & N. Dec. 233 (BIA 2025).
Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. 660 (BIA 1999).
R-o, 20 I. & N. Dec. 455 (BIA 1992).
D-g-b-l, 29 I. & N. Dec. 392 (BIA 2026).
· cites it 8×
Matti, 19 I. & N. Dec. 43 (BIA 1984).
Prus v. Mukasey, 289 F. App'x 973 (9th Cir. 2008).
“8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi). The government may prove firm resettlement by showing that the asylum seeker has been offered “permanent resident status, citizenship, or some other type of permanent resettlement.”
A-b, 27 I. & N. Dec. 247 (BIA 2018).
J-g-r, 28 I. & N. Dec. 733 (BIA 2023).
S-s-f-m, 29 I. & N. Dec. 207 (BIA 2025).
Z-r-c-n, 29 I. & N. Dec. 523 (BIA 2026).
E-n-n, 29 I. & N. Dec. 586 (BIA 2026).
T-d-e, 29 I. & N. Dec. 732 (BIA 2026).
· cites it 5×
M-s-i, 29 I. & N. Dec. 61 (BIA 2025).
· cites it 2×
L-e-a, 27 I. & N. Dec. 581 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
· cites it 3×
J-a, 29 I. & N. Dec. 253 (BIA 2025).
· cites it 3×
A-m-z-f, 29 I. & N. Dec. 551 (BIA 2026).
· cites it 3×
Aydin (E.D. Pa. 2025).
· cites it 7×
Bermegi (D. Maryland 2026).
· cites it 6×
P-a-c, 29 I. & N. Dec. 708 (BIA 2026).
· cites it 2×
Elezaj v. Mayorkas (D.N.J. 2025).
· cites it 5× “) In its Reply, the Government emphasizes a recent decision from the District of New Jersey in which Judge Salas noted “8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(7) expressly does not create a legally enforceable right or benefit against any officer of the United States or any agency” to persuade this…”
Lin (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
· cites it 5×
Salloum (D.N.J. 2026).
· cites it 5× “See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). To obtain relief, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she either experienced past persecution or has a well- founded fear of future persecution on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or…”
Wang v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (D. Haw. 2025).
· cites it 4× “The courts invariably reason that “8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A) cannot provide a basis for mandamus relief because, as previously discussed, the INA expressly precludes a private right of action to enforce those timing requirements.”
Shambi v. Blanche (2d Cir. 2026).
· cites it 4× “” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.”
A-a, 20 I. & N. Dec. 492 (Md. 1992).
· cites it 3×
Alexis Macias Torres v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 3× “2005) (holding that “8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) ‘divests our Court of jurisdiction to review a decision regarding whether an alien complied with the one-year time limit or established extraordinary circumstances that would excuse his untimely filing’” (quoting Mendoza v.”
Ok Kim v. Matthew Whitaker (9th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 3× “However, “[w]here the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.”
N-a-i (BIA 2017).
· cites it 3×
Zhang v. McAleenan (E.D.N.Y 2020).
· cites it 3× “Congress has supplied an indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to act in 8 U.S.C § 1158(d)(5)(iii), that is, within 180 days of the date an application is filed.”
Abulsheour v. Mayorkas (E.D. Pa. 2024).
· cites it 3× “1, 2023) (“8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(7) does not strip the federal courts’ jurisdiction to decide mandamus or APA claims based on assertions that asylum applications have remained pending long after those statutory deadlines.”
Nosrat (D. Maryland 2026).
· cites it 3×
Doe v. Gonzales, 676 F. App'x 650 (9th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 5× “Here, the factual basis of Doe’s petition is undisputed; we only review whether the BIA appropriately determined that the facts did not constitute “changed circumstances which materially a£fect[ed Doe’s] eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay…”
O-y-a-e, 29 I. & N. Dec. 190 (BIA 2025).
W-f, 29 I. & N. Dec. 319 (BIA 2025).
E-m-f-s, 29 I. & N. Dec. 379 (BIA 2026).
· cites it 4×
L-s-c-r, 29 I. & N. Dec. 451 (BIA 2026).
F-b-a, 29 I. & N. Dec. 456 (BIA 2026).
A-h-d, 29 I. & N. Dec. 642 (BIA 2026).
E-l-h, 22 I. & N. Dec. 21 (BIA 1998).
Almaghzar v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 4× “8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006). 8878 ALMAGHZAR v.”
L-t-a, 29 I. & N. Dec. 362 (BIA 2025).
· cites it 3×
Peter Kariuki v. Attorney Gen. United States, 643 F. App'x 120 (3rd Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “8U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). 18 , To the extent that Kariuld may have preserved his claim for withholding of removal, we need not consider it because that standard is even stricter than the standard for asylum.”
Ji v. Yates, 676 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2×
Chen v. Sessions (2d Cir. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Notwithstanding that provision, federal courts retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims” and “questions of law.”
Jennyfer Bernal-Gonzalez v. William Barr (9th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See 8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(2)(B). Bernal filed her asylum application more than three years after she entered the United States but contends that the murder of her uncle in October 2013 by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) constitutes a changed circumstance under 8 U.”
H-y-z (BIA 2020).
· cites it 2×
Ullah v. Garland (2d Cir. 2022).
· cites it 2× “See 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Ullah failed to 11 rehabilitate this testimony with reliable corroboration.”
Zhuo v. Mayorkas (E.D.N.Y 2024).
· cites it 2× “Congress has supplied an indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to act in 8 U.S.C § 1158(d)(5)(iii), that is, within 180 days of the date an application is filed “absen[t] exceptional circumstances.”
Chen v. Bondi (9th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Zuxiao Chen petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under sections 208(b)(1) and 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C §§ 1158(b)(l), 1231(b)(3). We…”
Gouem v. Raufer, Dir., Newark Asylum Off., Uscis (D.N.J. 2025).
· cites it 2× “) The Government makes a facial attack as to Plaintiff’s Mandamus Act Claim and argues that the claim fails at the outset because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a “clear and indisputable right” to relief because “8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(7) unambiguously bars any ‘substantive or…”
Bran-Soriano v. Bondi (2d Cir. 2025).
· cites it 2× “8 U.S.C §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); Quituizaca, 52 F.”
S.L. (E.D.N.Y 2025).
· cites it 2×
Black v. Almodovar; G.M. v. Almodovar (2d Cir. 2025).
· cites it 2× “But even assuming that he is eligible for asylum—which he does not appear to be, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii)—asylum is always “a discretionary form of relief” that the government may choose to deny, Hong Fei Gao v.”
Jose Tobias Barrera-Castillo v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 2× “8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3). The Board of Im- migration Appeals ruled that Barrera-Castillo was ineligible for asy- lum and withholding of removal because he failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground under the Act.”
Daley (E.D. Ky. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Abasov (E.D.N.Y 2025).
· cites it 2×
Ngwi (D. Maryland 2026).
· cites it 2×
Jammu (E.D. La. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Debela (D. Maryland 2026).
· cites it 2×
J-o-a (BIA 2026).
· cites it 2×
Y-h-l (BIA 2026).
· cites it 2×
Quizhpi v. Blanche (2d Cir. 2026).
· cites it 2× “” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also 8 C.”
A-c-m (BIA 2026).
· cites it 2×
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (2026).
· cites it 2× “The question in this case is when an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of that phrase in two key INA pro- visions—8 U. S. C. §§1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1): when the alien is standing in Mexico at the border, or…”
Zhong Bing Ke v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 296 F. App'x 878 (11th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 3× “*880 We are convinced that the IJ provided specific, cogent reasons for his adverse credibility determination with respect to Ke’s claim of persecution arising from violations of China’s family planning polices. The IJ’s oral decision lists several inconsistencies and…”
Islam v. Gonzales, 170 F. App'x 343 (5th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “8U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2005). . Yuqing Zhu, 382 F.”
D, 20 I. & N. Dec. 915 (BIA 1994).
Negusie, 29 I. & N. Dec. 285 (BIA 2025).
· cites it 2×
K-s-h, 29 I. & N. Dec. 307 (BIA 2025).
· cites it 2×
R-a-u, 29 I. & N. Dec. 582 (BIA 2026).
· cites it 2×
L-a-d, 29 I. & N. Dec. 634 (BIA 2026).
· cites it 2×
G-l-c, 29 I. & N. Dec. 717 (BIA 2026).
· cites it 2×
Balachova v. Mukasey (2d Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(2)(A)(I) (asylum); see also 8 U.”
Hai Lin v. Attorney Gen. United States (3rd Cir. 2018).
“Pursuant to 8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(2)(D), an alien is permitted to file a motion to reopen an asylum application after the 90-day reopening period has expired only when “the alien can show changed country conditions on the required accompanying motion to reopen.”
Rosa Maria Juan-Francisco v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2019).
“See 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(A). A “refugee” is “one who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Dawood Dawood Abdalla v. William Barr (9th Cir. 2020).
“The applicant must establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily- 1 The children are derivatives of their parents’ applications for asylum, see 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(b)(3)(A), (B); 8 C.F.R.§ 1208.”
Ever Munoz-Perez v. Merrick B. Garland (8th Cir. 2022).
“See 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(D), (a)(3) (1-year deadline for filing asylum application applies in absence of enumerated exceptions); Bartolo-Diego v.”
Gonzalo Mendoza Matias v. Merrick Garland (9th Cir. 2022).
“2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). The court must deny a petition for review unless the petitioner has presented “evidence ‘so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find’” that petitioner has not established eligibility.”
(HC) Sho v. S.F. Field Off., U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't (E.D. Cal. 2023).
“Petitioner’s case for 22 23 1 Title 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) & (B)(i) provide that asylum status must be revoked if the Attorney General determines that the alien was convicted of “a particularly serious crime.”
Z-r-c-n, 29 I. & N. Dec. 523 (BIA 2026).
Vanicek v. Blanche (9th Cir. 2026).
“” 8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(2)(B). The Immigration Judge (IJ) held that Vanicek’s application, filed four years after he entered the United States, was time barred.”
L-a-l-t, 29 I. & N. Dec. 269 (BIA 2025).
T-a-g, 29 I. & N. Dec. 715 (BIA 2026).
Chen v. Holder, 381 F. App'x 641 (9th Cir. 2010).
“See 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(B). The most significant reasons cited by the BIA are (1) the contradiction between Chen’s testimony and that of his sister regarding the date and length of Chen’s detention and (2) the contradiction in Chen’s testimony regarding whether he went directly…”
Tatjana Llusho v. Holder, 311 F. App'x 903 (6th Cir. 2009).
“8U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3). 2 . The IJ excluded the December kidnapping attempt from consideration because Llusho failed to establish that she was targeted for her political activities.”
Prayogo v. Ashcroft, 114 F. App'x 330 (9th Cir. 2004).
“Pursuant to 8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(8), Prayogo’s asylum claim is unreviewable by this court because the IJ determined that the claim was untimely.”
Quintero v. Gonzales, 187 F. App'x 743 (9th Cir. 2006).
“See 8U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3). . Although petitioners’ asylum applications were filed over a year after they entered the United States, the IJ concluded that they satisfied an exception to the one-year filing rule, 8 C.”
Singh v. Gonzales, 205 F. App'x 540 (9th Cir. 2006).
“…for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . 8U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3).”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) — 9 cases
Santos Iraheta-Martinez v. Merrick Garland, 12 F.4th 942 (9th Cir. 2021).
“Under 8 U.S.C § 1158(a): “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court.”
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
“Our conclusion hinged on the explicit recognition that the public-health emergency authority in Section 265 conflicted with immigration law’s requirement, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), that “[foreign individuals]—even those who enter the country illegally—[be allowed] to apply for…”
Jose Tobias Barrera-Castillo v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2025).
“8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3). The Board of Im- migration Appeals ruled that Barrera-Castillo was ineligible for asy- lum and withholding of removal because he failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground under the Act.”
Salloum (D.N.J. 2026).
“See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). To obtain relief, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she either experienced past persecution or has a well- founded fear of future persecution on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) — 2 cases
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
“Our conclusion hinged on the explicit recognition that the public-health emergency authority in Section 265 conflicted with immigration law’s requirement, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), that “[foreign individuals]—even those who enter the country illegally—[be allowed] to apply for…”
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (2026).
“The question in this case is when an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of that phrase in two key INA pro- visions—8 U. S. C. §§1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1): when the alien is standing in Mexico at the border, or…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(A) — 1 case
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
“Our conclusion hinged on the explicit recognition that the public-health emergency authority in Section 265 conflicted with immigration law’s requirement, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), that “[foreign individuals]—even those who enter the country illegally—[be allowed] to apply for…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) — 11 cases
C-p-y, 29 I. & N. Dec. 610 (BIA 2026).
“610 (BIA 2026) Interim Decision #4191 The asylum statute uses the word “arrival” in another provision, namely the 1-year time limit for filing an asylum application in section 208(a)(2)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2024). The INA requires an asylum application to be…”
Jennyfer Bernal-Gonzalez v. William Barr (9th Cir. 2020).
“See 8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(2)(B). Bernal filed her asylum application more than three years after she entered the United States but contends that the murder of her uncle in October 2013 by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) constitutes a changed circumstance under 8 U.”
Ever Munoz-Perez v. Merrick B. Garland (8th Cir. 2022).
“See 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(D), (a)(3) (1-year deadline for filing asylum application applies in absence of enumerated exceptions); Bartolo-Diego v.”
Vanicek v. Blanche (9th Cir. 2026).
“” 8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(2)(B). The Immigration Judge (IJ) held that Vanicek’s application, filed four years after he entered the United States, was time barred.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) — 9 cases
Ying Liu v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 555 F.3d 145 (3rd Cir. 2009).
“Accordingly, we conclude that 8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(2)(D) allows successive asylum applications only within the 90-day reopening period for orders denying asylum unless the alien can show changed country conditions on the required accompanying motion to reopen.”
Ordonez Azmen v. Barr, 965 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2020).
“” 8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(2)(D). As 15 we know, the “changed“ circumstances exception in § 1158(a)(2)(D) does not 16 similarly require that the “changed circumstances” relate to the delay.”
Pe Paul Goromou v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 721 F.3d 569 (8th Cir. 2013).
“Goromou contends that the BIA legally erred because “8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) creates two separate exceptions to the one[-]year deadline — changed circumstances and extraordinary circumstances — and an applicant must only establish one to excuse an untimely application.”
Hai Lin v. Attorney Gen. United States (3rd Cir. 2018).
“Pursuant to 8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(2)(D), an alien is permitted to file a motion to reopen an asylum application after the 90-day reopening period has expired only when “the alien can show changed country conditions on the required accompanying motion to reopen.”
Doe v. Gonzales, 676 F. App'x 650 (9th Cir. 2007).
“Here, the factual basis of Doe’s petition is undisputed; we only review whether the BIA appropriately determined that the facts did not constitute “changed circumstances which materially a£fect[ed Doe’s] eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) — 8 cases
Magdalena v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 139 F. App'x 467 (3rd Cir. 2005).
“2003) (“8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), provides that ‘no court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination by the Attorney General under paragraph [ (a) ](2),’ which includes the provision relating to whether extraordinary circumstances warrant waiving the one year time…”
Alexis Macias Torres v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2018).
“2005) (holding that “8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) ‘divests our Court of jurisdiction to review a decision regarding whether an alien complied with the one-year time limit or established extraordinary circumstances that would excuse his untimely filing’” (quoting Mendoza v.”
Chen v. Sessions (2d Cir. 2018).
“Notwithstanding that provision, federal courts retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims” and “questions of law.”
Islam v. Gonzales, 170 F. App'x 343 (5th Cir. 2006).
“8U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2005). . Yuqing Zhu, 382 F.”
Singh v. Gonzales, 205 F. App'x 540 (9th Cir. 2006).
“…for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . 8U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3).”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(8) — 1 case
Prayogo v. Ashcroft, 114 F. App'x 330 (9th Cir. 2004).
“Pursuant to 8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(8), Prayogo’s asylum claim is unreviewable by this court because the IJ determined that the claim was untimely.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) — 11 cases
Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006).
“” However, the REAL ID Act’s revision of 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1) now instructs the trier of fact in asylum proceed- ings to “consider[ ] the totality of the circumstances” when making a cred- ibility determination.”
Abdul R. Almaghzar v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 450 F.3d 415 (9th Cir. 2006).
“” However, the REAL ID Act's revision of 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1) now instructs the trier of fact in asylum proceedings to "consider[ ] the totality of the circumstances” when making a credibility determination.”
Joel Soriano-Dominguez v. Eric Holder, Jr, U S Att, 354 F. App'x 886 (5th Cir. 2009).
“” On that basis, he sought asylum pursuant to 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1). The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied the application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) agreed.”
D-e-b, 29 I. & N. Dec. 83 (BIA 2025).
“See INA §§ 208(b)(2), 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1), 1231(b)(3) (2018).”
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
“Our conclusion hinged on the explicit recognition that the public-health emergency authority in Section 265 conflicted with immigration law’s requirement, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), that “[foreign individuals]—even those who enter the country illegally—[be allowed] to apply for…”
Black v. Almodovar; G.M. v. Almodovar (2d Cir. 2025).
“But even assuming that he is eligible for asylum—which he does not appear to be, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii)—asylum is always “a discretionary form of relief” that the government may choose to deny, Hong Fei Gao v.”
Zhong Bing Ke v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 296 F. App'x 878 (11th Cir. 2008).
“*880 We are convinced that the IJ provided specific, cogent reasons for his adverse credibility determination with respect to Ke’s claim of persecution arising from violations of China’s family planning polices. The IJ’s oral decision lists several inconsistencies and…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A) — 3 cases
Irfan Ali v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 931 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2019).
“8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(A). Under the statute, a "refugee" is "one who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or…”
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
“Our conclusion hinged on the explicit recognition that the public-health emergency authority in Section 265 conflicted with immigration law’s requirement, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), that “[foreign individuals]—even those who enter the country illegally—[be allowed] to apply for…”
Rosa Maria Juan-Francisco v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2019).
“See 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(A). A “refugee” is “one who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B) — 1 case
Chen v. Holder, 381 F. App'x 641 (9th Cir. 2010).
“See 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(B). The most significant reasons cited by the BIA are (1) the contradiction between Chen’s testimony and that of his sister regarding the date and length of Chen’s detention and (2) the contradiction in Chen’s testimony regarding whether he went directly…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) — 8 cases
Andrei Skripkov v. William P. Barr, 966 F.3d 480 (6th Cir. 2020).
“” According to Skripkov, the IJ erred in applying the asylum statute’s “one central reason” standard, stated in 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), to his withholding-of- removal claim.”
Shambi v. Blanche (2d Cir. 2026).
“” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) — 2 cases
Aben v. Garland, 113 F.4th 457 (5th Cir. 2024).
“33 See 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (“Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the…”
Ok Kim v. Matthew Whitaker (9th Cir. 2018).
“However, “[w]here the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) — 4 cases
Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006).
“” However, the REAL ID Act’s revision of 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1) now instructs the trier of fact in asylum proceed- ings to “consider[ ] the totality of the circumstances” when making a cred- ibility determination.”
Gonzalo Mendoza Matias v. Merrick Garland (9th Cir. 2022).
“2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). The court must deny a petition for review unless the petitioner has presented “evidence ‘so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find’” that petitioner has not established eligibility.”
Ullah v. Garland (2d Cir. 2022).
“See 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Ullah failed to 11 rehabilitate this testimony with reliable corroboration.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A) — 2 cases
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
“Our conclusion hinged on the explicit recognition that the public-health emergency authority in Section 265 conflicted with immigration law’s requirement, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), that “[foreign individuals]—even those who enter the country illegally—[be allowed] to apply for…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(I) — 2 cases
Balachova v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 2008).
“” 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(2)(A)(I) (asylum); see also 8 U.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) — 2 cases
(HC) Sho v. S.F. Field Off., U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't (E.D. Cal. 2023).
“Petitioner’s case for 22 23 1 Title 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) & (B)(i) provide that asylum status must be revoked if the Attorney General determines that the alien was convicted of “a particularly serious crime.”
Black v. Almodovar; G.M. v. Almodovar (2d Cir. 2025).
“But even assuming that he is eligible for asylum—which he does not appear to be, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii)—asylum is always “a discretionary form of relief” that the government may choose to deny, Hong Fei Gao v.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi) — 1 case
Prus v. Mukasey, 289 F. App'x 973 (9th Cir. 2008).
“8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi). The government may prove firm resettlement by showing that the asylum seeker has been offered “permanent resident status, citizenship, or some other type of permanent resettlement.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(C) — 1 case
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
“Our conclusion hinged on the explicit recognition that the public-health emergency authority in Section 265 conflicted with immigration law’s requirement, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), that “[foreign individuals]—even those who enter the country illegally—[be allowed] to apply for…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) — 2 cases
Tatjana Llusho v. Holder, 311 F. App'x 903 (6th Cir. 2009).
“8U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3). 2 . The IJ excluded the December kidnapping attempt from consideration because Llusho failed to establish that she was targeted for her political activities.”
Quintero v. Gonzales, 187 F. App'x 743 (9th Cir. 2006).
“See 8U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3). . Although petitioners’ asylum applications were filed over a year after they entered the United States, the IJ concluded that they satisfied an exception to the one-year filing rule, 8 C.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) — 3 cases
De Leon v. Gonzales, 153 F. App'x 3 (1st Cir. 2005).
“See 8U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) (2000). 2 . De Leon’s 1991 asylum application was apparently lost.”
Dawood Dawood Abdalla v. William Barr (9th Cir. 2020).
“The applicant must establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily- 1 The children are derivatives of their parents’ applications for asylum, see 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(b)(3)(A), (B); 8 C.F.R.§ 1208.”
Shambi v. Blanche (2d Cir. 2026).
“” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l) — 1 case
Chen v. Bondi (9th Cir. 2025).
“Zuxiao Chen petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under sections 208(b)(1) and 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C §§ 1158(b)(l), 1231(b)(3). We…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(A) — 1 case
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(i) — 2 cases
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(ii) — 1 case
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii) — 6 cases
Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006).
“” However, the REAL ID Act’s revision of 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1) now instructs the trier of fact in asylum proceed- ings to “consider[ ] the totality of the circumstances” when making a cred- ibility determination.”
Abdul R. Almaghzar v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 450 F.3d 415 (9th Cir. 2006).
“” However, the REAL ID Act's revision of 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1) now instructs the trier of fact in asylum proceedings to "consider[ ] the totality of the circumstances” when making a credibility determination.”
Zheng v. Holder, 507 F. App'x 755 (10th Cir. 2013).
“plicant's or witness's account, the consistency between the applicant's or witness's written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such…”
Peter Kariuki v. Attorney Gen. United States, 643 F. App'x 120 (3rd Cir. 2016).
“8U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). 18 , To the extent that Kariuld may have preserved his claim for withholding of removal, we need not consider it because that standard is even stricter than the standard for asylum.”
Zhong Bing Ke v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 296 F. App'x 878 (11th Cir. 2008).
“*880 We are convinced that the IJ provided specific, cogent reasons for his adverse credibility determination with respect to Ke’s claim of persecution arising from violations of China’s family planning polices. The IJ’s oral decision lists several inconsistencies and…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(c)(1)(B) — 1 case
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
“Our conclusion hinged on the explicit recognition that the public-health emergency authority in Section 265 conflicted with immigration law’s requirement, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), that “[foreign individuals]—even those who enter the country illegally—[be allowed] to apply for…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(c)(2)(E) — 1 case
Zepeda-Lopez v. Garland, 38 F.4th 315 (2d Cir. 2022).
“§ 1158 (a)(2)(A), (c)(2)(C) (safe third country provision); see also 8 U.S.C § 1158(c)(2)(E) (termination of asylum upon acquisition of a new nationality).”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d) — 1 case
Salloum (D.N.J. 2026).
“See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). To obtain relief, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she either experienced past persecution or has a well- founded fear of future persecution on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(1) — 1 case
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
“Our conclusion hinged on the explicit recognition that the public-health emergency authority in Section 265 conflicted with immigration law’s requirement, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), that “[foreign individuals]—even those who enter the country illegally—[be allowed] to apply for…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(2) — 1 case
Salloum (D.N.J. 2026).
“See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). To obtain relief, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she either experienced past persecution or has a well- founded fear of future persecution on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(4) — 1 case
S-m-h, 29 I. & N. Dec. 412 (BIA 2026).
“INA § 208(d)(4), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(4). On appeal, the respondent contends that she was not given sufficient notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous application because the presiding Immigration Judge in 1999 did not provide the warning either orally or in writing.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A) — 3 cases
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
“Our conclusion hinged on the explicit recognition that the public-health emergency authority in Section 265 conflicted with immigration law’s requirement, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), that “[foreign individuals]—even those who enter the country illegally—[be allowed] to apply for…”
Wang v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (D. Haw. 2025).
“The courts invariably reason that “8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A) cannot provide a basis for mandamus relief because, as previously discussed, the INA expressly precludes a private right of action to enforce those timing requirements.”
Salloum (D.N.J. 2026).
“See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). To obtain relief, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she either experienced past persecution or has a well- founded fear of future persecution on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A)(ii) — 1 case
Salloum (D.N.J. 2026).
“See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). To obtain relief, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she either experienced past persecution or has a well- founded fear of future persecution on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(B) — 1 case
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
“Our conclusion hinged on the explicit recognition that the public-health emergency authority in Section 265 conflicted with immigration law’s requirement, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), that “[foreign individuals]—even those who enter the country illegally—[be allowed] to apply for…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(iii) — 2 cases
Zhang v. McAleenan (E.D.N.Y 2020).
“Congress has supplied an indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to act in 8 U.S.C § 1158(d)(5)(iii), that is, within 180 days of the date an application is filed.”
Zhuo v. Mayorkas (E.D.N.Y 2024).
“Congress has supplied an indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to act in 8 U.S.C § 1158(d)(5)(iii), that is, within 180 days of the date an application is filed “absen[t] exceptional circumstances.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) — 2 cases
S-m-h, 29 I. & N. Dec. 412 (BIA 2026).
“INA § 208(d)(4), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(4). On appeal, the respondent contends that she was not given sufficient notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous application because the presiding Immigration Judge in 1999 did not provide the warning either orally or in writing.”
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
“Our conclusion hinged on the explicit recognition that the public-health emergency authority in Section 265 conflicted with immigration law’s requirement, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), that “[foreign individuals]—even those who enter the country illegally—[be allowed] to apply for…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(7) — 3 cases
Abulsheour v. Mayorkas (E.D. Pa. 2024).
“1, 2023) (“8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(7) does not strip the federal courts’ jurisdiction to decide mandamus or APA claims based on assertions that asylum applications have remained pending long after those statutory deadlines.”
Elezaj v. Mayorkas (D.N.J. 2025).
“) In its Reply, the Government emphasizes a recent decision from the District of New Jersey in which Judge Salas noted “8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(7) expressly does not create a legally enforceable right or benefit against any officer of the United States or any agency” to persuade this…”
Gouem v. Raufer, Dir., Newark Asylum Off., Uscis (D.N.J. 2025).
“) The Government makes a facial attack as to Plaintiff’s Mandamus Act Claim and argues that the claim fails at the outset because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a “clear and indisputable right” to relief because “8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(7) unambiguously bars any ‘substantive or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.