The evaluation of good moral character for naturalization applicants will now be a “holistic assessment” of a person’s behavior and adherence to societal norms.
The assessment will not only check for an absence of disqualifying acts and negative factors but applicants will be required to show a “genuine positive assessment of character.”
USCIS officers should consider how the applicant has lived in their community and whether they made positive contributions.
USCIS officers are now explicitly directed to weigh all relevant evidence, both adverse and favorable, before making a decision.
The standard of proof for all naturalization requirements, including GMC, remains a preponderance of the evidence, meaning an applicant must show it is “more likely than not” that they have met all requirements.
The policy memorandum from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) outlines a new more “comprehensive and holistic standard” for evaluating an applicant’s “good moral character” (GMC) for naturalization. Key points of the new policy include a new assessment of a person’s behavior looking for adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions, looking for more than just the absence of disqualifying acts and requiring a “genuine positive assessment of character”, USCIS officers are now explicitly directed to weight all evidence to determine if GMC is established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Changes and Potential Impacts on Applicants
Holistic Evaluation: This policy signals a shift from a firm, checklist-based approach to a “totality of circumstances” approach. Before the 1990s, the evaluation was broader, and USCIS is now returning to that framework.
Greater Emphasis on Positive Contributions: USCIS will place greater emphasis on an applicant’s positive attributes and contributions, such as sustained community involvement, family caregiving, educational attainment, a stable and lawful employment history, length of lawful residence, and compliance with financial obligations.
Increased Scrutiny of Negative Behavior: While permanent bars like murder or aggravated felonies remain unconditional and permanent, USCIS will also focus greater attention on other potentially disqualifying behaviors. This includes conditional bars (e.g., DUI convictions, unlawful voting) and other acts that are “contrary to the average behavior of citizens” even if technically lawful, such as reckless traffic infractions or aggressive solicitation.
Focus on Rehabilitation: The policy emphasizes that evidence of genuine rehabilitation for past wrongdoing may support a finding of GMC.
How Does This Change the Application Process
Affirmatively Demonstrate Positive Character Applicants should not rely solely on the absence of disqualifying acts. They must actively present their full story, showing how their life aligns with the ethical standards of their community and affirmatively demonstrate their positive character.
Provide Evidence of Positive Attributes Applicants must provide, wit their N-400 Application, evidence of their positive attributes and contributions. This could include documentation of community involvement, educational achievements, stable employment, and a history of financial responsibility.
Address Past Issues with Evidence of Rehabilitationor Consider Waiting to Apply If an applicant has a history of wrongdoing that does not bar them and they wish to apply they must first speak with an immigration attorney to assess the risk and if they proceed then they should provide evidence of rehabilitation. Examples of such evidence include proof of rectifying overdue child support or taxes, complying with probation, and obtaining community testimony from credible sources.
Any applicant with a criminal record, even if it does not disqualify them from naturalizing, should strongly consider waiting util Trump is no longer in office to apply for naturalization.
Be Prepared for Detailed Questions USCIS officers will review all available documentation and may question applicants about the specific circumstances of their past actions to determine if they should be barred from naturalization. Applicants should be prepared to explain any past issues and demonstrate how they have reformed. You should speak with an attorney to get prepped for your interview even if you are going to attend the interview by yourself unrepresented.
RESTRICTING THE ENTRY OF FOREIGN NATIONALS TO PROTECT THE UNITED STATES FROM FOREIGN TERRORISTS AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY THREATS
Sec. 2. Full Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern.
The entry into the United States of nationals of the following countries is hereby suspended and limited, as follows, subject to the categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers described in section 5 of this proclamation:
(a) Afghanistan
(i) The Taliban, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group, controls Afghanistan. Afghanistan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. According to the Fiscal Year 2023 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Entry/Exit Overstay Report (“Overstay Report”), Afghanistan had a business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visa overstay rate of 9.70 percent and a student (F), vocational (M), and exchange visitor (J) visa overstay rate of 29.30 percent.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Afghanistan as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
(b) Burma
(i) According to the Overstay Report, Burma had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 27.07 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 42.17 percent. Additionally, Burma has historically not cooperated with the United States to accept back their removable nationals.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Burma as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
(c) Chad
(i) According to the Overstay Report, Chad had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 49.54 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 55.64 percent. According to the Fiscal Year 2022 Overstay Report, Chad had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 37.12 percent. The high visa overstay rate for 2022 and 2023 is unacceptable and indicates a blatant disregard for United States immigration laws.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Chad as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
(d) Republic of the Congo
(i) According to the Overstay Report, the Republic of the Congo had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 29.63 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.14 percent.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of the Republic of the Congo as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
(e) Equatorial Guinea
(i) According to the Overstay Report, Equatorial Guinea had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 21.98 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 70.18 percent.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Equatorial Guinea as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
(f) Eritrea
(i) The United States questions the competence of the central authority for issuance of passports or civil documents in Eritrea. Criminal records are not available to the United States for Eritrean nationals. Eritrea has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals. According to the Overstay Report, Eritrea had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 20.09 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 55.43 percent.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Eritrea as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
(g) Haiti
(i) According to the Overstay Report, Haiti had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 31.38 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 25.05 percent. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden Administration. This influx harms American communities by creating acute risks of increased overstay rates, establishment of criminal networks, and other national security threats. As is widely known, Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Haiti as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
(h) Iran
(i) Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government in identifying security risks, is the source of significant terrorism around the world, and has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Iran as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby suspended.
(i) Libya
(i) There is no competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents in Libya. The historical terrorist presence within Libya’s territory amplifies the risks posed by the entry into the United States of its nationals.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Libya as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
(j) Somalia
(i) Somalia lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. Somalia stands apart from other countries in the degree to which its government lacks command and control of its territory, which greatly limits the effectiveness of its national capabilities in a variety of respects. A persistent terrorist threat also emanates from Somalia’s territory. The United States Government has identified Somalia as a terrorist safe haven. Terrorists use regions of Somalia as safe havens from which they plan, facilitate, and conduct their operations. Somalia also remains a destination for individuals attempting to join terrorist groups that threaten the national security of the United States. The Government of Somalia struggles to provide governance needed to limit terrorists’ freedom of movement. Additionally, Somalia has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Somalia as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
(k) Sudan
(i) Sudan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. According to the Overstay Report, Sudan had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 26.30 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 28.40 percent.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Sudan as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
(l) Yemen
(i) Yemen lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. The government does not have physical control over its own territory. Since January 20, 2025, Yemen has been the site of active United States military operations.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Yemen as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
Sec. 3. Partial Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern.
(a) Burundi
(i) According to the Overstay Report, Burundi had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 15.35 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 17.52 percent.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Burundi as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, is hereby suspended.
(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Burundi to the extent permitted by law.
(b) Cuba
(i) Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism. The Government of Cuba does not cooperate or share sufficient law enforcement information with the United States. Cuba has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals. According to the Overstay Report, Cuba had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 7.69 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 18.75 percent.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Cuba as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, is hereby suspended.
(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Cuba to the extent permitted by law.
(c) Laos
(i) According to the Overstay Report, Laos had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 34.77 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 6.49 percent. Laos has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Laos as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, is hereby suspended.
(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Laos to the extent permitted by law.
(d) Sierra Leone
(i) According to the Overstay Report, Sierra Leone had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 15.43 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.83 percent. Sierra Leone has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Sierra Leone as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.
(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Sierra Leone to the extent permitted by law.
(e) Togo
(i) According to the Overstay Report, Togo had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 19.03 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.05 percent.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Togo as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.
(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Togo to the extent permitted by law.
(f) Turkmenistan
(i) According to the Overstay Report, Turkmenistan had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 15.35 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 21.74 percent.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Turkmenistan as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.
(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Turkmenistan to the extent permitted by law.
(g) Venezuela
(i) Venezuela lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. Venezuela has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals. According to the Overstay Report, Venezuela had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 9.83 percent.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Venezuela as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B‑1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.
(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Venezuela to the extent permitted by law.
DOJ Sues New York State Attempting to Block the Protect Our Courts Act
New York State has a law called the Protect Our Courts Act that was initially enacted in 2020 which prevents individuals who are participating in a court proceedings from civil arrest while they are attending a court hearing or on their way to or from a hearing (it prevents officers from sitting in the parking lot of the courthouse or outside the courtroom waiting for a person to show up to a scheduled hearing then arresting them when they arrive or as they leave). The purpose of this law, as stated in the bill itself1, “is to facilitate continued access to the justice system and courts by all members of the community without fear of immigration-related consequences.”
What is the Protect Our Courts Act?
The restricts federal enforcement operations at NYS Courts so that all New Yorkers have access to justice. The law does not prevent a person from being arrested. It simply restricts when someone can be arrested while attending a court hearing. Only judicially-signed warrants or orders may be executed in court buildings, and those must be reviewed by the court where a federal officer is seeking to execute the warrant or order. The court will determine the time, place, and method by which the warrant or order may be executed. If someone is civilly arrested in violation of this act, they may file an action in NYS Supreme Court to challenge the arrest. Further, it applies to civil arrests, not criminal arrests. A person with an outstanding felony warrant or a person who commits a crime can still be arrested without any restrictions.
This law was put in place because immigration officials were using NYS Courts as a tool for arresting individuals they believed to have violated civil immigration laws. By arresting New York as they arrived to their scheduled court hearings, immigration officials were essentially excluding immigrants from being able to participate in State Court proceedings or to avail themselves of the State Courts. Immigrants were unable to bring a lawsuit, respond to a lawsuit, challenge a parking ticket, etc. because if they attempted to appear for a hearing as instructed by the Court, immigration officials would be waiting for them and they would be arrested. This affected the entire immigrant population because most of the people who were arrested this way were not even aware that ICE was looking for them. Often times these stemmed from old immigration cases initiated back when they first entered the country many years prior (many from when they were children). The result was that all immigrants in NY had to fear arrest when attempting a State Court hearing, even if they had no reason to believe they had any warrants or were wanted by immigration officials.
This has become an issue now due to President Trump’s aggressive enforcement of immigration laws since taking office. On his first day in office he announced Executive Order 10866, Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border, which directs the Department of Homeland of Security to issue guidelines for the safe and effective enforcement of immigration laws around the country, specifically at or near courthouses.
DOJ Lawsuit
On Thursday, June 12, 2025, the United States filed a complaint against the State of New York, challenging the law for it blocking immigration officials from arresting individuals at a New York courthouse. Specifically, the complaint challenges the Protect Our Courts Act because they are alleging that it “purposefully shields dangerous aliens from being lawfully detained at or on their way to or from a courthouse and imposes criminal liability for violations of the shield. This law and accompanying polices violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because they obstruct the execution of federal immigration authorities.” That is according to the official Press Release from the DOJ regarding their filing of this suit.
The DOJ’s press release references “Executive Order 10866, Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border, which directs the Department of Homeland of Security to issue guidelines for the safe and effective enforcement of immigration laws around the country, specifically at or near courthouses.” Executive Order 10866 was made by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1960 and it was titled “Designating the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization as a Public International Organization Entitled To Enjoy Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities2.” New York’s law does technically “follow” this executive order since it was passed more than a half a century after it, but it seems strange to imply that NYS passed this law in response to Eisenhower’s executive order. Not sure what this is about.
This is the latest in a number of lawsuits the DOJ has filed challenging what they believe to be state interference with immigration enforcement. In May, the DOJ sued several New Jersey cities who had enacted similar policies. Trump’s administration has sued Colorado, Illinois, New York and several cities, including Chicago and Rochester, New York, asserting their policies violate the US constitution or federal law. Illinois, Minnesota and New York also were among 14 states and hundreds of cities and counties recently listed by the Department of Homeland Security as “sanctuary jurisdictions defying federal immigration law” according to the Guardian.
The Trump administration’s use of Federal Immigration Officers to arrest immigrants at Courthouses is a big problem because it removes immigrants from the legal system in this country. Immigrants are left with no access to justice. Whether its child custody cases, traffic summonses, contract disputes, or minor criminal infractions people have to appear in Court at times to handle important aspects of their lives. If immigrants are not able to attend court hearings for these important matters they are forced to lose by default and they suffer the harms connected to the that.
It can also be used as a weapon to arrest immigrants who are trying to do the right thing by complying with court orders telling them to show up at court. Three US immigration officials told the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity that government attorneys were given the order to start dismissing cases when the immigrants would show up for the now-dismissed-cases on Monday, federal agents would be there waiting to arrest them as they left the courtroom.
This is a problem not only in State Courts but in Federal Courts and most commonly, in Immigration Courts. Immigrants right now are facing a really difficult decision every time they have an immigration check-in or immigration court hearing. Since ICE has been arresting immigrants at they show up for regularly scheduled check-ins and when they arrive for asylum hearing, those immigrants who are following the rules and doing everything they were supposed to do are being punished for doing so. That leads many to think, should I not show-up to my next hearing? Should I skip my next check-in appointment? Why go if you are going to be arrested? Some ask whether it would be better to stop attending court and to wait until Trump is out of office.
Stay tuned for any updates on the case. Read the full complaint HERE.
A statement was published by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stating that ICE, CBP, and USCIS is going to “Ramp Up Crackdown on Visa Overstays Following Boulder Terrorist Attack.” An email blast wen out around noon today with the above-quoted text as the subject line and the below-quote from Secretary Noem.
“There is NO room in the United States for the rest of the world’s terrorist sympathizers. Anyone who thinks they can come to America and advocate for antisemitic violence and terrorism – think again. You are not welcome here. We will find you, deport you, and prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.” – Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem
The body of the email does not provide any additional information about how they will be implementing the crackdown or whether this will impact the issuance of non-immigrant visas beyond overstay issues. It does not provide information on what people who overstayed their visa should do. It just warns, “we will find you, deport you, and prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.”
The statement blames President Biden failing to enforce the law, though there is no evidence that visa overstays increased while Biden was in office. Visa overstays spiked dramatically during President Trump’s first term in office during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Here are some facts about visa overstays:
The largest number of short-term visitor overstays from non-VWP countries came from Venezuela. About 173,000 Venezuelans overstayed during the year — which is about 94 percent of the visitors. This is because the Biden administration has allowed Venezuelans to enter and receive Temporary Protected Status, a designation that includes a work permit.
The next largest number of overstays by short-term visitors are citizens of Mexico, with approximately 124,000 overstays, at a rate of 3.5 percent.
For the first time, DHS broke down the overstay rates for the three sub-categories of student/exchange visas. Vocational school students had the highest overstay rate of the three (9.1 percent). Exchange visitors overstayed at a rate of 5.6 percent, and university and other traditional students overstayed at a rate of 4.1 percent.
Just over 9,000 citizens of China overstayed on student or exchange visitor visas, representing more than 16 percent of all student/exchange overstays.
The largest number of overstays in the category that includes temporary workers came from Mexico (131,000) and India (5,800).
The policies included commonsense provisions for providing these vulnerable persons with water to drink. Along with drinking water CBP rescinded its policies to stock diapers and baby formula (which was usually expired) for the infants/newborns and making arrangements to ensure their mothers can breastfeed them. expediting the release of those in medically dangerous situations who should not be held in custody.
The Department of Homeland Security has long struggled to provide adequate medical care to the immigrants in its custody, which has resulted in hundreds of deaths of young, previously healthy men and women, and even children. A Senate Judiciary Report from 2024 revealed widespread dysfunction In 2018 Mariee Juarez was in ICE custody in Dilley, Texas where she began running a 104 degree fever and developed cough, according to an article in the Guardian who interviewed the mother.
In addition to the cough, the 21-month-old toddler was suffering from congestion, diarrhea and vomiting a week after entering Dilley. But the symptoms were not mentioned by medical staff on discharge forms, according to the lawsuit. She was released from the ICE detention center and spent six weeks in the hospital before she succumb to a collapsed lung from the respiratory infection she developed in the detention center where she received no medical treatment. She was one of the seven children who died shortly after release from immigration custody that year.
The detention centers have been found to be unsanitary and dangerous in reports from organizations that inspected them during Trump’s first term in the White House when he previously suspended similar policies regarding the treatment of pregnant women and children in immigration custody. The Chair of the House Oversight Committee that year, Elijah Cummings, called the treatment of migrant children at the facility “government-sponsored child abuse on a grand scale.” Between October 2016 and August 2018, twenty-eight women in ICE custody “may have experienced a miscarriage just prior to, or while in ICE custody” according to an ICE spokeswoman. In 2018 there was also an eight-year-old Guatemalan boy, Felipe Gómez Alonso, who died on Christmas Eve while in ICE custody, and three weeks earlier, a seven-year-old Guatemalan girl, Jakelin Caal Maquin, died in Border Patrol custody according to the New York Times that reported on it at the time.
The memo that rescinds the existing policies did not implement any new policies to replace them other than “All CBP personnel are expected to treat those in Agency custody in a professional and respectful manner.” There will now be no special considerations for pregnant women, babies, elderly, or migrants who are severely ill. The same day the memo was issued a pregnant woman was found lost in the Arizona desert where she had been trying to find her way for two days according to the reports. She was taken to the hospital where she gave birth to a six pound premature baby “under supervision” of ICE officers according to a spokesperson from the Department of Homeland Security.
It not clear why this would be necessary and the spokesperson did not explain. Was the Trump administration concerned that the severely dehydrated woman had to give birth in front of officers because the Trump administration was concerned she might attempt to flee the hospital while in active labor?
These new policies, or the lack of policies, seems to indicate that the administration intends to be even more ruthless this second time around. Critics say the change could further endanger individuals already at risk in immigration detention facilities.
We are only six months into this nightmare and I am afraid the suffering has only just begun.
A Respondent was being represented by an attorney in removal proceedings and was ordered removed. The attorneys for the Respondent filed a notice of appeal in a timely manner. On July 29, 2023, the Board issued a briefing schedule granting the Respondents until August 21, 2023, to file a brief. The briefing schedule was served on the parties electronically. No written brief or statement was received by the filing deadline.
The Respondent’s counsel filed a timely motion to reconsider, arguing that they did not receive notice that their appeal had become an electronic record of proceedings and were expecting that the briefing schedule would be issued in paper form. Respondent’s counsel concedes the briefing schedule was sent to them, just that it was filtered into a spam folder.
The administrative record reflects that the Respondents were properly served electronically with the briefing schedule, and thus placed on notice of the deadline to file their appeal brief with the Board. The Board therefore denied their motion to reconsider the prior decision summarily dismissing the appeal for failure to file a brief.
It is the attorney’s obligation to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that they receive their email the same way they would have to take the necessary steps to ensure they received their postal mail. Attorneys need to understand that in the electronic age, email is no less official than regular mail sent through the USPS. It is the attorney’s burden to setup spam filters properly and to take the necessary steps to ensure there are no interruptions to their email service. They should also be checking their spam folder for important emails like a briefing deadline from the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The respondents’ counsel does not dispute that she received the email notification regarding the briefing schedule. Additionally, counsel does not indicate what efforts she or members of her staff made to monitor incoming email, given her awareness of the pending appeal in this case. Where parties were properly served with electronic notice of the briefing schedule, a representative’s failure to diligently monitor the inbox, including the spam folder, of the email address of record does not excuse a party’s failure to comply with briefing deadlines. That the respondents’ counsel did not see the briefing schedule at the time it was electronically delivered, standing alone, does not provide a sufficient basis for reconsideration of our prior decision. In this electronic world, an attorney’s obligation to monitor, check, and open emails is no different than their obligation to go to the mailbox, retrieve their paper mail, open it, and act upon it.
The Board wrote:
Matter of Arciniegas-Patino, 28 I&N Dec. 883, at 886 (BIA 2025) .
The full decision is available below as a PDF.
This decision is important because it puts all attorneys on notice that they better be taking their email seriously and implementing procedures to ensure they are not missing any important electronic notices or emails.
It’s yet to be seen if the Board will be as strict about such matters with unrepresented respondents. Initially it seems like they should enjoy a bit more breathing room but if email is going to be treated the same as regular mail through the postal service then unrepresented respondents should be held to the same standard. This may be sort of a moot point though if the BIA doesn’t send unrepresented respondents briefing schedules by email, which I could not confirm. Unrepresented respondents can file a notice of appeal through ECAS so I would expect that they receive briefing schedules electronically as well.
Board’s Decision
Matter of ARCINIEGAS-PATINO, 28 I&N Dec. 883 (BIA 2025) (PDF)
