BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

UNIVERSAL IMMIGRATION APPEAL BRIEF TEMPLATE

Document Metadata

• Respondent/Petitioner: [RESPONDENT FULL LEGAL NAME]
• Alien Registration Number (“A-Number”): A-[__]
• Immigration Court of Origin: [CITY, STATE]
• BIA Docket Number (if assigned): [__]
• Date of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Decision: [MM / DD / YYYY]
• Filing Deadline for Brief: [MM / DD / YYYY]
• Counsel of Record: [ATTORNEY NAME, BAR NO.]
• Address / Contact Information: [__]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Preliminary Statement ………………………………………………………………. 1
2. Jurisdiction & Standard of Review ………………………………………………… 1
3. Issues Presented ……………………………………………………………………… 2
4. Statement of the Case & Procedural History ……………………………………… 2
5. Statement of Facts …………………………………………………………………… 3
6. Summary of the Argument ………………………………………………………… 4
7. Argument ……………………………………………………………………………… 5
   7.1 Issue One Heading …………………………………………………………… 5
   7.2 Issue Two Heading …………………………………………………………… 7
   7.3 Issue Three Heading ………………………………………………………… 9
8. Request for Relief …………………………………………………………………… 11
9. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 12
10. Certificate of Service ……………………………………………………………… 13

[// GUIDANCE: Update page numbers once drafting is complete. The above assumes single-spaced body text with double spacing between sections.]

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Respondent, [NAME], respectfully submits this brief in support of the appeal taken from the Immigration Judge’s decision dated [DATE], ordering [type of relief denied or removal ordered]. This appeal is timely pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c) and complies with the briefing schedule issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board” or “BIA”).

JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW

1. Jurisdiction lies with the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b)(3) & (d)(3), as the decision below is a final order of an Immigration Judge in removal proceedings conducted under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.
2. The Board reviews findings of fact, including credibility determinations, for clear error. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). Questions of law and the application of law to undisputed facts are reviewed de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii).

[// GUIDANCE: The Board frequently cites Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500 (BIA 2008) in explaining standards of review; insert appropriate case citations here.]

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Whether the Immigration Judge erred as a matter of law in denying Respondent’s application for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1).
2. Whether substantial evidence supports the finding that Respondent failed to demonstrate a clear probability of persecution for purposes of withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).
3. Whether the IJ properly applied the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–18.

[// GUIDANCE: Tailor issue statements to the facts of the specific case. Frame in a yes/no question format that cleanly presents legal error.]

STATEMENT OF THE CASE & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Removal proceedings commenced on [DATE] with service of a Notice to Appear under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a).
2. Respondent conceded removability on [DATE] but sought relief in the form of [asylum/withholding/CAT/etc.].
3. The Immigration Judge conducted individual merits hearings on [DATES].
4. On [DATE], the IJ issued an oral/written decision denying the requested relief and ordering removal to [COUNTRY].
5. Respondent filed a timely Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR-26) on [DATE].

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The relevant facts, drawn from Respondent’s sworn testimony, corroborating documentation, and country-conditions evidence, are summarized below:

1. Personal Background: [AGE, GENDER, NATIONALITY, ETHNICITY].
2. Past Persecution: [Describe incidents, dates, perpetrators, protected grounds].
3. Continuing Fear: [Describe ongoing threats or likelihood of future harm].
4. Country Conditions: [Summarize authoritative reports—e.g., U.S. Dept. of State Human Rights Report].

[// GUIDANCE: For maximal credibility, tether each factual assertion to record citations—e.g., “Tr. 45:12–46:3” or “Exh. 4, p. 17.”]

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The Immigration Judge committed reversible error by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard to Respondent’s asylum claim, (2) making clearly erroneous factual findings unsupported by the record, and (3) failing to give reasoned consideration to country-conditions evidence corroborating Respondent’s fear of persecution and torture. When the correct legal standards are applied, and the record is properly considered, Respondent plainly satisfies the statutory definitions set forth in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), and 1231(b)(3)(A).

ARGUMENT

7.1 The Immigration Judge Applied an Incorrect Legal Standard in Denying Asylum

A. Statutory Framework
1. To qualify for asylum, an applicant must establish that they are a “refugee” as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
2. An applicant may satisfy the burden of proof by demonstrating past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).

B. Analytical Error
1. The IJ required proof of persecution rising to a “clear probability,” effectively importing the higher withholding-of-removal standard into the asylum analysis.
2. The proper standard is a “reasonable possibility,” a lower threshold.

[// GUIDANCE: Insert controlling circuit or Board precedent illustrating the “reasonable possibility” standard.]

C. Prejudicial Effect
1. Had the IJ applied the correct standard, Respondent’s evidence—including [list key exhibits]—meets or exceeds the requisite threshold.
2. Accordingly, reversal and remand with instructions to grant asylum is warranted.

7.2 Substantial Evidence Does Not Support Denial of Withholding of Removal

A. Statutory Requirement
Respondent must show a “clear probability” of persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).

B. Factual Mischaracterizations
The IJ discounted credible testimony regarding [specific incident], mischaracterized documentary evidence, and ignored material country-conditions evidence.

C. Correct Application
When the record is evaluated without these errors, the only reasonable conclusion is that Respondent’s life or freedom would be threatened in [COUNTRY] on account of [protected ground].

7.3 The IJ Failed to Assess CAT Eligibility Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)

A. Legal Standard
To succeed under CAT, Respondent must show it is more likely than not that they would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).

B. Omitted Analysis
The IJ’s decision omits any meaningful discussion of government acquiescence despite uncontroverted evidence of police collusion.

C. Relief Requested
Remand is necessary for the IJ to conduct the required CAT analysis or, alternatively, for the Board to grant protection outright.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Respondent respectfully requests that the Board:

1. REVERSE the Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum and order the grant of asylum;
2. In the alternative, REVERSE the denial of withholding of removal and order such relief;
3. In the further alternative, VACATE the decision below as to protection under CAT and REMAND with instructions for proper analysis; and
4. GRANT any and all further relief the Board deems just and proper.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent has met the statutory and regulatory criteria for the relief sought. The Immigration Judge’s decision should be reversed, and Respondent should be accorded protection from removal.

Respectfully submitted,

[ATTORNEY NAME]
Counsel for Respondent
[LAW FIRM / ORGANIZATION]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE / EMAIL]
Dated: [MM / DD / YYYY]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, [ATTORNEY NAME], certify that on [MM / DD / YYYY], I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief in Support of Appeal on the Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, by [specify method: first-class mail / overnight courier / electronic submission as permitted] to the following address:

Office of Chief Counsel
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
[ADDRESS]

[ATTORNEY SIGNATURE]

APPENDIX / ADDENDUM (Optional)

A. Table of Authorities
B. Respondent’s Sworn Affidavit
C. Country-Conditions Reports
D. Expert Declarations

[// GUIDANCE: The BIA does not require a Table of Authorities, but including one enhances professionalism. Ensure all exhibits are paginated and labeled consistently with references in the brief.]

PRACTICAL CHECKLIST

1. Verify filing deadline and mailing method comply with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c).
2. Paginate consecutively, including exhibits (e.g., “A-1,” “A-2”).
3. Attach Form EOIR-27 (Notice of Appearance) if not previously filed.
4. Include proof of service on DHS.
5. Double-check statutory and regulatory citations for accuracy.
6. Remove [PLACEHOLDER] text and fill with case-specific information.
7. Update page numbers in Table of Contents upon finalization.
8. Convert to PDF and ensure legibility of all exhibits before submission.

[// GUIDANCE: This template omits case law citations to comply with the provided citation policy. Insert controlling Board or circuit precedents where indicated, ensuring accuracy before filing.]