Board of Immigration Appeals Brief

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS — APPEAL BRIEF

Comprehensive Template with Table of Authorities, Argument Framework, and Filing Guide

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PRACTITIONERS

This template provides a comprehensive framework for drafting a brief in support of an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) from an Immigration Judge's decision. It is designed for use in a range of case types, including asylum, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture (CAT), cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, and other forms of relief. Practitioners must tailor this brief to the specific facts, controlling circuit law, and issues presented in each case. Always consult the EOIR Practice Manual (Part III, BIA Chapter) and the BIA Practice Manual for current requirements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption and Cover Page
2. Table of Contents (for the Filed Brief)
3. Table of Authorities
4. Preliminary Statement
5. Statement of Jurisdiction
6. Standards of Review
7. Issues Presented for Review
8. Statement of the Case and Procedural History
9. Statement of Facts
10. Summary of the Argument
11. Argument
    - 11.1 Issue One
    - 11.2 Issue Two
    - 11.3 Issue Three
    - 11.4 Additional Issues
12. Request for Relief
13. Conclusion
14. Signature Block
15. Certificate of Service
16. Appendix Checklist
17. Filing Instructions, Fees, and Deadlines
18. Appeal Eligibility Checklist
19. Practitioner Notes and Common Pitfalls
20. Sources and References

1. CAPTION AND COVER PAGE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
In the Matter of:                )
                                 )
[________________________________],  )    A-Number: A-[________________________________]
                                 )
         Respondent.             )    BIA Docket No.: [________________________________]
                                 )
In Removal Proceedings           )    Immigration Court: [________________________________]
                                 )                       [City, State]
                                 )
                                 )    IJ Decision Date: [__/__/____]
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────


              RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL


                    [________________________________]
                    Attorney Name, Esq.
                    [________________________________]
                    Law Firm / Organization
                    [________________________________]
                    Address
                    [________________________________]
                    City, State, ZIP
                    [________________________________]
                    Telephone | Email
                    [________________________________]
                    Bar Number / EOIR Registration

                    Counsel for Respondent

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS (FOR THE FILED BRIEF)

(Update page numbers upon completion of the brief)

3. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes

Regulations

Case Law — Supreme Court

Case Law — Board of Immigration Appeals

Case Law — Circuit Courts

4. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Respondent, [________________________________] ("Respondent"), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this brief in support of the appeal from the Immigration Judge's decision dated [__/__/____], in which the Immigration Judge:

☐ Denied Respondent's application for asylum under INA § 208
☐ Denied Respondent's application for withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3)
☐ Denied Respondent's application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)
☐ Denied Respondent's application for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A
☐ Denied Respondent's application for adjustment of status under INA § 245
☐ Denied Respondent's application for voluntary departure under INA § 240B
☐ Found Respondent removable as charged
☐ Entered an in absentia order of removal
☐ Other: [________________________________]

and ordered Respondent removed to [________________________________].

This appeal is timely. Respondent filed the Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR-26) on [__/__/____], within thirty (30) calendar days of the Immigration Judge's decision on [__/__/____], in compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b).

This brief is timely filed within the briefing deadline of [__/__/____], as set by the Board's briefing schedule notice dated [__/__/____], in compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c).

5. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Board of Immigration Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3), which grants the Board jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of Immigration Judges in removal proceedings conducted under INA § 240, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.

The decision below is a final order of an Immigration Judge entered on [__/__/____]. The Respondent filed a timely Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR-26) on [__/__/____].

Controlling circuit: [________________________________] Circuit

6. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

6.1 Findings of Fact — Clear Error

The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including credibility determinations, under a "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). A factual finding is clearly erroneous when the Board, upon reviewing the entire record, is "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Matter of R-S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 629, 637 (BIA 2003) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). A finding may not be overturned simply because the Board would have weighed the evidence differently.

6.2 Questions of Law — De Novo

The Board reviews questions of law, discretion, and judgment, and all other issues in appeals from decisions of Immigration Judges, de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). This includes questions of statutory interpretation, the application of legal standards to established facts, and the exercise of discretion.

6.3 Mixed Questions of Law and Fact

For mixed questions of law and fact, the Board applies a bifurcated standard: reviewing the underlying factual determinations for clear error and the conclusions as to whether those facts satisfy the relevant legal standard de novo.

6.4 Credibility Determinations

Under INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), credibility determinations are based on the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, including demeanor, candor, responsiveness, inherent plausibility, consistency between the applicant's statements and other evidence, internal consistency, and any inaccuracies or falsehoods. The Board reviews credibility determinations for clear error. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i).

6.5 Applicable Standard(s) in This Appeal

The following standard(s) of review apply to the issues raised in this appeal:

7. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Whether the Immigration Judge erred [☐ as a matter of law / ☐ by making clearly erroneous factual findings] in [________________________________].

2. Whether the Immigration Judge erred [☐ as a matter of law / ☐ by making clearly erroneous factual findings] in [________________________________].

3. Whether the Immigration Judge erred [☐ as a matter of law / ☐ by making clearly erroneous factual findings] in [________________________________].

4. [________________________________]

(Practitioner note: Frame each issue as a question that cleanly presents the legal or factual error. Issues should be concise but specific enough to identify the error and the applicable legal standard.)

8. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. On [__/__/____], the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") served a Notice to Appear ("NTA") on Respondent, charging removability under INA § [________________________________], 8 U.S.C. § [________________________________]. The NTA was filed with the Immigration Court on [__/__/____].

2. The NTA charged Respondent with the following:
   - Factual allegations: [________________________________]
   - Charge(s) of removability: [________________________________]

3. At the initial Master Calendar hearing on [__/__/____], Respondent, through counsel:
   ☐ Admitted the factual allegations in the NTA
   ☐ Denied the factual allegations (specifically: [________________________________])
   ☐ Conceded removability
   ☐ Denied removability
   ☐ Designated [________________________________] as the country of removal

4. Respondent applied for the following forms of relief:
   ☐ Asylum under INA § 208
   ☐ Withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3)
   ☐ Protection under the Convention Against Torture
   ☐ Cancellation of removal under INA § 240A
   ☐ Adjustment of status under INA § 245
   ☐ Voluntary departure under INA § 240B
   ☐ Other: [________________________________]

5. The Immigration Judge conducted individual merits hearing(s) on [__/__/____] [and [__/__/____]].

6. On [__/__/____], the Immigration Judge issued a [☐ written / ☐ oral] decision denying the requested relief and ordering Respondent removed to [________________________________].

7. On [__/__/____], Respondent filed a timely Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR-26) with the Board of Immigration Appeals, together with the filing fee of $110 [or a fee waiver request on Form EOIR-26A].

8. On [__/__/____], the Board issued a briefing schedule, setting Respondent's brief due date as [__/__/____].

9. Form EOIR-27 (Notice of Entry of Appearance Before the BIA) was filed on [__/__/____].

9. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The relevant facts, drawn from Respondent's sworn testimony, corroborating documentation, country-conditions evidence, and the administrative record, are summarized below. Record citations are provided throughout.

9.1 Personal Background

Respondent is a [____]-year-old [male/female/nonbinary] citizen and national of [________________________________]. [He/She/They] was born on [__/__/____] in [________________________________]. Respondent's [race/ethnicity/tribe/religion/political affiliation] is [________________________________]. (Tr. [____]; Exh. [____].)

9.2 Persecution and Harm

[Provide detailed factual narrative, tied to record citations]

[________________________________]
(Tr. [____]:____-[____]:____.)

[________________________________]
(Tr. [____]:____-[____]:____; Exh. [____], p. [____].)

[________________________________]
(Tr. [____]:____-[____]:____; Exh. [____], p. [____].)

[________________________________]
(Tr. [____]:____-[____]:____.)

9.3 Reporting to Authorities

[________________________________]
(Tr. [____]:____-[____]:____.)

9.4 Departure and Flight

[________________________________]
(Tr. [____]:____-[____]:____.)

9.5 Country Conditions

[Summarize authoritative country conditions evidence in the record]

The U.S. Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices for [________________________________] ([Year]) documents [________________________________]. (Exh. [____], p. [____].)

9.6 Equitable Ties to the United States (if applicable)

[________________________________]
(Tr. [____]:____; Exh. [____].)

9.7 Other Relevant Facts

[________________________________]
(Tr. [____]:____; Exh. [____].)

10. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The Immigration Judge committed reversible error by:

1. [________________________________]
   [Brief explanation of the error and why it was prejudicial]

2. [________________________________]
   [Brief explanation of the error and why it was prejudicial]

3. [________________________________]
   [Brief explanation of the error and why it was prejudicial]

When the correct legal standards are applied and the record is properly considered, Respondent satisfies the statutory and regulatory requirements for [________________________________].

11. ARGUMENT

11.1 ISSUE ONE: [________________________________]

A. Legal Framework

[Set forth the applicable statutory and regulatory framework]

[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

B. The Immigration Judge's Analysis

The Immigration Judge [held/found/concluded] that [________________________________]. (IJ Dec. at [____].)

C. The Immigration Judge Erred Because [________________________________]

[Develop the argument in detail, with record citations and case law]

[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

D. Prejudice

The error was prejudicial because, had the Immigration Judge applied the correct standard [or properly evaluated the evidence], the outcome would have been different. Specifically, [________________________________].

11.2 ISSUE TWO: [________________________________]

A. Legal Framework

[________________________________]
[________________________________]

B. The Immigration Judge's Analysis

The Immigration Judge [held/found/concluded] that [________________________________]. (IJ Dec. at [____].)

C. The Immigration Judge Erred Because [________________________________]

[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

D. Prejudice

[________________________________]

11.3 ISSUE THREE: [________________________________]

A. Legal Framework

[________________________________]
[________________________________]

B. The Immigration Judge's Analysis

The Immigration Judge [held/found/concluded] that [________________________________]. (IJ Dec. at [____].)

C. The Immigration Judge Erred Because [________________________________]

[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

D. Prejudice

[________________________________]

11.4 ADDITIONAL ISSUES (if applicable)

[Use the same A-B-C-D structure for each additional issue]

[________________________________]

Common Argument Templates

(Select and customize the applicable argument template(s) below)

Template A: Incorrect Legal Standard Applied

The Immigration Judge applied an incorrect legal standard in evaluating Respondent's claim for [________________________________]. Specifically, the IJ required [________________________________], when the proper standard under [statute/regulation/case law] is [________________________________]. See [citation]. Because this is a question of law, the Board reviews the issue de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). Under the correct standard, the evidence in the record demonstrates that [________________________________].

Template B: Clearly Erroneous Credibility Finding

The Immigration Judge's adverse credibility determination is clearly erroneous. The IJ identified the following purported inconsistencies: [________________________________]. However, these purported inconsistencies [are not material / have been adequately explained / are based on a mischaracterization of the record]. The record demonstrates that [________________________________]. See Tr. [____]:____-[____]:____. When the totality of the circumstances is properly considered under INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), Respondent's testimony is credible.

Template C: Failure to Consider Material Evidence

The Immigration Judge failed to consider or give adequate weight to material evidence in the record, specifically [________________________________]. (Exh. [____].) The IJ's decision does not address this evidence at all [or addresses it only in passing without meaningful analysis]. This omission constitutes legal error because [________________________________]. An adjudicator must consider all relevant evidence and explain the basis for the decision. See Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 126 (4th Cir. 2011); Kholyavskiy v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 555, 570 (7th Cir. 2008).

Template D: Improper Nexus Analysis

The Immigration Judge erred in analyzing the nexus between the harm suffered by Respondent and the protected ground of [________________________________]. The IJ [imposed too high a standard / ignored evidence of mixed motives / failed to consider imputed characteristics]. Under INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(i), the protected ground must be "at least one central reason" for the persecution. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992). The record evidence establishes that [________________________________].

Template E: Failure to Analyze CAT Claim

The Immigration Judge failed to conduct the required analysis of Respondent's claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ's decision omits any discussion of [government acquiescence / country conditions evidence demonstrating torture / the specific nature of the feared harm]. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c) requires the adjudicator to consider all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture. The uncontroverted evidence in the record demonstrates that [________________________________].

Template F: Erroneous Discretionary Denial

The Immigration Judge's discretionary denial of [asylum / cancellation of removal / voluntary departure] was an abuse of discretion because the IJ [failed to consider favorable factors / gave disproportionate weight to unfavorable factors / relied on clearly erroneous factual findings]. The favorable factors include [________________________________]. When properly weighed against the unfavorable factors, the balance of equities favors a grant of relief in the exercise of discretion.

12. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the Board of Immigration Appeals:

A. ☐ SUSTAIN the appeal and REVERSE the Immigration Judge's decision denying [________________________________];

B. ☐ REMAND the case to the Immigration Court for further proceedings consistent with the Board's decision, including [________________________________];

C. ☐ ORDER the grant of [asylum / withholding of removal / CAT protection / cancellation of removal / adjustment of status / voluntary departure / other: ________________________________];

D. ☐ In the alternative, VACATE the Immigration Judge's decision and REMAND with instructions to [________________________________];

E. ☐ GRANT any and all other relief that justice and the law may require.

13. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent has demonstrated that the Immigration Judge committed [legal error / clearly erroneous factual findings / abuse of discretion] in denying Respondent's application(s) for relief from removal. When the correct legal standards are applied and the evidence is properly evaluated, Respondent meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for [________________________________]. The Immigration Judge's decision should be reversed [or the case should be remanded for further proceedings].

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________          Date: [__/__/____]
[________________________________]
Attorney Name, Esq.
[________________________________]
Law Firm / Organization
[________________________________]
Address
[________________________________]
City, State, ZIP
[________________________________]
Phone | Email
[________________________________]
Bar Number / EOIR Registration Number

Counsel for Respondent

14. SIGNATURE BLOCK

(Same as Section 13 above; include in filed brief)

15. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, [________________________________], hereby certify that on [__/__/____], I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief in Support of Appeal on the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Chief Counsel, by the following method:

☐ First-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to:
Office of Chief Counsel
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

☐ Overnight courier (FedEx/UPS/DHL) to:
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

☐ Electronic submission as permitted by ECAS or Board rules

☐ Hand delivery at the Immigration Court

☐ Other: [________________________________]

_________________________________          Date: [__/__/____]
[________________________________]
Attorney Name

16. APPENDIX CHECKLIST

(Attach to the brief as applicable)

☐ Respondent's sworn affidavit or declaration (updated if warranted)
☐ Table of authorities (included in brief)
☐ Copy of Immigration Judge's decision (oral decision transcript or written decision)
☐ Key excerpts from hearing transcript, with page/line references
☐ Key exhibits from the record on appeal
☐ Country-conditions updates (post-IJ decision, if applicable)
☐ New legal authority or case law decided after the IJ's decision (with motion to supplement)
☐ Expert declarations (if not already in the record)

Note: The BIA generally does not accept new evidence on appeal. New evidence must be submitted via a motion to remand. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). If presenting new evidence, file a separate motion to remand with the brief.

17. FILING INSTRUCTIONS, FEES, AND DEADLINES

17.1 Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR-26)

17.2 Brief Filing

17.3 Fee Waiver (Form EOIR-26A)

17.4 Key Deadlines Summary

18. APPEAL ELIGIBILITY CHECKLIST

Pre-Filing Verification

☐ The decision appealed from is a final order of an Immigration Judge (not an interlocutory order, unless interlocutory appeal is available)
☐ The appeal is filed within 30 calendar days of the IJ's decision
☐ The $110 filing fee (or fee waiver request) is included
☐ Form EOIR-26 is completely filled out, including a statement of reasons for the appeal
☐ Form EOIR-27 (Notice of Entry of Appearance) is attached if new counsel is entering the case
☐ The appeal identifies the specific issues to be raised
☐ The appeal is filed with the BIA Clerk's Office at the correct address

Brief Preparation Verification

☐ The brief is filed within the 21-day briefing deadline (or extended deadline)
☐ The brief addresses each issue identified in the EOIR-26
☐ All factual assertions are supported by record citations (transcript page/line; exhibit number/page)
☐ All legal arguments are supported by statutory, regulatory, and case law citations
☐ The standard of review is correctly identified for each issue
☐ The controlling circuit is identified and circuit-specific precedent is cited
☐ Country conditions evidence is from the record (new evidence requires a motion to remand)
☐ A Certificate of Service on DHS is included
☐ The brief is signed and dated

Common Errors to Avoid

☐ Do NOT raise issues not identified in the EOIR-26 (the Board may decline to consider them)
☐ Do NOT submit new evidence without a separate motion to remand
☐ Do NOT rely exclusively on BIA precedent without checking controlling circuit law
☐ Do NOT use boilerplate arguments without tailoring to the specific facts
☐ Do NOT miss the filing deadlines — there is NO tolling for the 30-day appeal deadline (except the EOIR-26A cure period)

19. PRACTITIONER NOTES AND COMMON PITFALLS

Procedural Considerations

1. 30-Day Appeal Deadline Is Jurisdictional: The Board strictly enforces the 30-day filing deadline for Form EOIR-26. There is no provision for nunc pro tunc filing or equitable tolling of this deadline. Calendar the deadline immediately upon receiving the IJ's decision.

2. EOIR-26 Statement of Reasons: The Form EOIR-26 requires a brief statement of reasons for the appeal. While detailed arguments should be reserved for the brief, the statement should identify the specific issues to be raised. Failure to identify an issue may result in the Board declining to consider it.

3. Briefing Deadline Extensions: If additional time is needed to prepare the brief, file a motion for extension BEFORE the briefing deadline expires. The Board is more likely to grant extensions when the motion demonstrates good cause and is filed early.

4. Oral Argument: The Board may decide the appeal on the briefs without oral argument. If oral argument is desired, file a separate written request. The Board grants oral argument at its discretion.

5. Custody Issues: Filing an appeal does NOT automatically stay removal. If the respondent is detained, consider filing a motion for stay of removal or a bond motion.

6. Voluntary Departure: If the IJ granted voluntary departure and the respondent appeals, the voluntary departure period is tolled during the pendency of the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i). However, if the BIA dismisses the appeal, the voluntary departure period resumes, and the respondent must depart within the remaining time.

Substantive Considerations

7. Circuit Law Controls: Always research and cite the controlling circuit court precedent. The BIA follows the law of the circuit in which the immigration court is located. Different circuits have different standards on key issues such as particular social groups, nexus, credibility, and corroboration.

8. Preserve Issues Below: Issues not raised before the Immigration Judge may be deemed waived on appeal. If possible, raise all potential issues before the IJ to preserve them for appeal.

9. Standard of Review Matters: Correctly identify the applicable standard of review for each issue. Arguments challenging factual findings must demonstrate "clear error," which is a high standard. Arguments raising legal errors are reviewed de novo, which is a more favorable standard for appellants.

10. Credibility Challenges: Challenging an adverse credibility finding on appeal is difficult under the clear error standard. Focus on demonstrating that the IJ's credibility analysis: (a) relied on immaterial inconsistencies; (b) failed to consider cultural or psychological explanations for inconsistencies; (c) mischaracterized the evidence; or (d) failed to consider the totality of the circumstances.

11. Country Conditions: If new country conditions evidence has emerged after the IJ's decision, it cannot be included in the brief. File a separate motion to remand accompanied by the new evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv).

12. Partial Appeals: A respondent may appeal some issues and not others. Be strategic about which issues to raise — quality over quantity.

Post-Decision Considerations

13. BIA Decision: The BIA typically issues its decision in writing. If the appeal is sustained, the Board may reverse and grant relief, or remand to the IJ for further proceedings. If the appeal is dismissed, the respondent has 30 days to file a Petition for Review (PFR) with the appropriate circuit court.

14. Motion to Reconsider: A motion to reconsider a BIA decision must be filed within 30 days. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). It must identify errors of fact or law in the Board's decision.

15. Motion to Reopen: A motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). It must be supported by evidence that was not available at the time of the prior proceeding.

16. Petition for Review: If the BIA dismisses the appeal, the respondent may file a Petition for Review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the immigration court is located. The PFR must be filed within 30 days of the BIA's final order. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

20. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Statutes

• INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) — Definition of Refugee
• INA § 208, 8 U.S.C. § 1158 — Asylum
• INA § 208(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B) — Burden of Proof; Credibility
• INA § 240, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a — Removal Proceedings
• INA § 240A, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b — Cancellation of Removal
• INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) — Withholding of Removal
• 8 U.S.C. § 1252 — Judicial Review

Regulations

• 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 — Organization, Jurisdiction, and Powers of the BIA
• 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) — Clear Error Standard of Review
• 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) — De Novo Standard of Review
• 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) — New Evidence on Appeal
• 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 — Motions to Reopen and Reconsider
• 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3 — Notice of Appeal; Briefing
• 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c) — Briefing Deadlines
• 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38 — Appeal Deadlines
• 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 — Establishing Asylum Eligibility
• 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16-208.18 — Withholding and CAT
• 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) — Voluntary Departure Tolling

Case Law

• INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) — Well-Founded Fear Standard
• INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) — Nexus
• INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984) — Clear Probability Standard
• United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) — Clear Error Standard
• Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985) — PSG; Persecution
• Matter of S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 462 (BIA 2002) — De Novo Standard (Historical)
• Matter of R-S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 629 (BIA 2003) — Clear Error Application
• Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500 (BIA 2008) — Clear Error Standard
• Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014) — PSG Framework
• Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014) — PSG Framework

Practice Resources

• EOIR Policy Manual, Part III (Board of Immigration Appeals)
• BIA Practice Manual (current edition)
• EOIR Immigration Court Practice Manual
• DOJ EOIR Website: https://www.justice.gov/eoir
• Form EOIR-26: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/eoir26/dl
• BIA Appeal Timeline and Deadlines: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/bia/chapter-4/5
• BIA Briefing Deadlines: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/bia/chapter-4/7
• American Immigration Council, Standards of Review Applied by the BIA
• ILRC, Identifying Issues for a BIA Appeal

This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Appellate immigration practice is complex and requires familiarity with both BIA and circuit court precedent. This document must be reviewed and customized by a qualified immigration attorney experienced in appellate practice. No attorney-client relationship is created by the use of this template.