Immigration Review

Ep. 314 - Precedential Decisions: 4/27/2026 - 05/3/2026 (no mandatory detention for EWIs; bond & FBI; in absentia - children & exceptional circumstances; tolling; credibility; 204(c); foreign convictions)

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 1:17:55

Barbosa Da Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026)

  • no mandatory detention for EWIs; Hurtado; seeking admission; INA § 235(a)(2)(B); Laken Riley Act; applicant for admission entry; canon of constitutional avoidance; plain text 

 


Matter of Shentu, 29 I&N Dec. 595 (BIA 2026)

  • bond; FBI Letterhead Memorandum; national security risk

 


Matter of Orozco Becerra and Orozco Becerra, 29 I&N Dec. 600 (BIA 2026)

  • in absentia removal order against minors; administrative closure; shall

 


Nimaga v. Blanche, No. 20-3065 (7th Cir. Apr. 29, 2026)

  • in absentia motion to reopen; failure to attend due to exceptional circumstances; poverty; lack of access to vehicle; ability to call court; delayed issuance of mandate

 


Oxlaj-Perez v. Blanche, No. 25-3337 (6th Cir. Apr. 29, 2026)

  • equitable tolling; claims processing rule; no argument required until reply; extending 30 day PFR deadline; Riley; ignorance and lack of money insufficient; diligence 

 


Deh v. Blanche, No. 25-3659 (6th Cir. Apr. 29, 2026)

  • flawed interpretation; due process; motion to reopen inconsistencies; credibility; Mauritania 

 


Us v. Blanche, No. 25-3504 (6th Cir. Apr. 29, 2026)

  • exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; Wilkison; substantial evidence review; Urias

 


Hanan, et al. v. USCIS et al., No. 24-6193 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2026)

  • marriage fraud; INA § 204(c); statutory interpretation; Mathews Test; no right to cross-examine ex-spouse; sworn statements; Ching; I-130 discovery; due process requires consideration of the evidence



Coatl-Chiquito v. Blanche, No. 25-1233 (7th Cir. Apr. 30, 2026)

  • in absentia motion to reopen; time bar; number bar; sua sponte; Pereira; Niz-Chavez; defective NTA; removal v. deportation proceedings



Usma Acosta v. Blanche, No. 25-1045 (1st Cir. May 1, 2026)

  • fraud and willful misrepresentation; INTERPOL Red Notice; murder; foreign criminal convictions; credibility; asylum; withholding of removal; CAT; cancellation of removal; naturalization; motion to reopen



Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.
Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.


eimmigration
"Immigration law software you’ll love to use."

 

Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration Bonds

 

EB-5 Support
"EB-5 Support is an ongoing mentorship and resource platform created specifically for immigration attorneys."


Stafi
"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"


Support the show

SPEAKER_00

Welcome to Immigration Review, your weekly source for immigration case law updates and insights. I'm your host, Kevin A. Gregg, a partner at the Immigration, Medical Malpractice, and Business Litigation Law Firm Curzban, Kurzban, Tetzelli, and Pratt, back again to review the week's precedential immigration cases, rummaging through the decisions so you don't have to. This podcast is sponsored by Serenade e-immigration. If you're heading to DC for the Ala Spring CLE conference this April, here's one stop to add to your list. Be sure to visit the e-immigration booths. I won't be there, but I wish I was. In the meantime, get more insights and resources tailored for you at get.eimmigration.com forward slash IRP or click on the special link in the show notes. This podcast is also sponsored by Gonzalez and Gonzalez Immigration Bonds. Immigration Attorneys. Once you've secured a bond, let Gonzalez and Gonzalez take it from there. In business and family-owned for 75 years, Gonzalez ⁇ Gonzalez helps other families post immigration bonds quickly, easily, and with full support every step of the way. Sure, you can post directly with DHS, but that means no guidance, no help when something goes wrong, and a four to six month wait for a refund. With Gonzalez and Gonzalez, families get hands-on help throughout the entire process and typically get refunds within one to two weeks of receiving the I-391 notice. Tired of being the point of contact for every bond question? Let Gonzalez and Gonzalez take those calls. They'll handle the paperwork, the system issues, and the family's concerns so you can focus on what really matters: winning the case and helping your clients stay in the country. You can reach Gonzalez and Gonzalez at 833-409-9200. Their fee? And for bonds of $10,000 or more, they can defer the fee and deduct it from the refund. Financing options? They've got those too. Give Gonzalez and Gonzalez a call, check them out at immigrationbond.com, or click on their special link in the show notes. And as always, this show does not constitute legal advice and has no bias other than to keep you up to date and to enable you, my dear colleagues, to excel in court. So, without further ado, let's start the review. Happy mid-April, everyone. I am part of a select group of people who have seen some of the briefing in the Haiti TPS lawsuit currently at the Supreme Court that goes to oral argument later this month. Our case with Brian Cave and many others. It's a good brief. Just saying it's a good brief. Prayers for the Haitians and all the other TPS holders. Also, this week, the Second Circuit abrogated its prior illegal re-entry challenge precedent due to the Supreme Court's decision in Palomar Santiago, episode 57. If you are a 1326 criminal immigration attorney, check it out. Finally, it's been a while. How about some Patreon loves? You know I appreciate all the Patreons. Helps me keep tune what I'm doing. I see you, Joey Kaddish, Sarah Dunsky, Hugo Hernandez, Robin Brown, Alex Rizzio, Catherine Conway, and a lot of other fairly recent patrons. I really, really appreciate you. Please email me for whatever you want, whenever you want. I'll respond when I can. Can't let it go without recognizing some of the OGs though. Anonymous Scott, and I know who you are, Scott. Brandon Riches, Barbara Camacho, Marianne Stanny Yunis, Amanda Doom, Ray Kishar McCrawford, then Ad Milosevic, Brianna Carey, My Own Mom, Derek Upchurch, and Eunice Scott. And all of you who have been with me for so many years, either through Patreon or other means. I appreciate you all, and I'm going to continue to do what I do. With that said, here are five cases this week, another week with nothing particularly good for non-citizens, but hold on tight, better weeks are ahead.

Barbosa Da Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026)

SPEAKER_00

First up is Velasquez Olais, the Blanche, published by the Seventh Circuit on April 6, 2026. Not gonna lie, guys, the Blanche isn't doing it for me. It doesn't pop. Hard to find the cases, too, in the day of publications. Blanche isn't sticking out for me. Maybe I'll come around later, but I think I'm already missing Bondi a little bit. Already missing her. Also, is it wrong to admit that the first thing I think when I see Blanche is a streetcar named Desire? And is it even worse to admit that I've never actually seen the movie? And so I'm actually thinking of the Simpsons episode where Marge has the role in the local play and has a whole song and number about how you can always depend on the kindness of strangers. I know I'm not the only one out there listening. A stranger's just a friend you haven't met. Alright, alright. But I know some of you know. If you know, you know. With that very important intro, here's the very short case.

unknown

Mr.

SPEAKER_00

Velasquez Olayas entered the United States without authorization sometime before 2018 and received a state drug conviction. ICE issued a final administrative removal order, or pharaoh, against her. She could have petitioned for review that pharaoh, but man, it is difficult to do that, and it happens so fast. And Miss Vlasquezolais didn't do it. ICE removed her to Mexico in early August 2018. She returned unlawfully and was identified at some point thereafter and got her conviction amended from possession with intent to distribute to simple possession. Way to go, Miss Vlasquezolais. Possibly a big deal as far as eligibility for relief from removal, and certainly to whether she was removable for having an aggravated felony that first time around. But of course, she still has the removal order, which is a big problem. And once ICE reinstates it, the INA precludes attempts to reopen. Seems like ICE didn't reinstate right away. Quote, counsel for Miss Velasquez Elayas then asked an immigration official in Chicago to reopen and cancel the removal order. After an exchange of emails, a deportation officer in the Chicago Field Office of the Department of Homeland Security stated that the Chicago office would not revisit the 2018 order. Miss Velasquezalais now asked the Court of Appeals to review that email message, end quote. Because again, this removal order, this pharaoh, is happening only within ICE. The immigration courts don't get involved. And I mean it's clear, at least to me, what Miss Velasquezalais and her attorney are trying to do. She's trying to get judicial review of ICE's refusal to reopen a pharaoh pre-reinstatement. Seems legit to me, and I'm not sure what else she could have done. Although it is unclear whether a formal motion was filed. Then again, doing this through ICE and with ICE as required of a pharaoh is never really that formal, and it's all really weird. And so, in my humble opinion, is no way to run a system. The Seventh Circuit, though, said it couldn't review this, whatever it is. The Supreme Court's rally decision arose in the Pharaoh context, recall. And as such, quote, with some exceptions, Section 242A1 authorizes a Court of Appeals to review a final order of removal. So we could have reviewed the 2018 order, but that order was carried out. All questions about timing aside, it is not possible to see an email from a field office as the agency's final decision, let alone as a final order of removal, end quote. Tricky ice, too, quote, an order of removal may be reinstated under INA section 241A5, and the act of reinstatement is reviewable under some circumstances. But the 2018 order has not been reinstated, end quote. Query if they did, whether then you could get review of an email motion to reopen refusal. But then again, I guess you couldn't reopen anyway because of the INA. So confusing. Here actually, it seems that Iced did Miss Velasquez Olayas a solid and started new INA Section 240 proceedings by issuing a notice to appear. In those proceedings, she can argue about the nature of her conviction. Seems like she kinda got what she wants, so I'm unsure what the dispute is actually about anymore. But perhaps I've missed something. End of story. For now. And that is Vlasquezolais the Blanche. Next is Matter of Bolivar Bolivar, published by the BIA. BIA not letting us off the hook on Friday. But coming in at only three pages, so hey, I'll take it these days. I'll take it. This case is about making it easier to order people removed who don't show up for their immigration court hearings. DHS filed a compliant notice to appear with the Atlanta Immigration Court, charging Mr. Bolivar as present without being admitted or paroled in the United States. A week before the hearing listed in the NTA, DHS filed a form I-213 with the Immigration Court. Mr. Bolivar did not appear at the hearing. But you know what? Neither did DHS. Pretty wild, right? As such, the immigration judge terminated removal proceedings. Surely for lack of prosecution, but also stated based on DHS's failure to establish removability or file a motion, I guess, to go in absentia. And as I've always understood it, at an inabentia removal hearing, DHS, I thought, was obligated to request that the immigration judge go in absentia, in these, ostensibly, adversarial proceedings. No longer, if that was ever required at all. Building off matter of Tepec Garcia, episode 295, in what I bet you was the agreement to publish Tepet Garcia in the first place, the BIA made clear that if DHS files evidence of alienage before a removal hearing where the non-citizen is charged as I we, the IJ must go in absentia and order the non-citizen removed. That's distinguishable from Tepe Garcia itself, where DHS filed nothing before the hearing. And of course, this was all contemplated in Tepec Garcia, I believe, in a footnote. And all right, the BIA doesn't flat out say the IJ must order Mr. Bolivar removed. The IJ here aired in terminating, says the BIA. The IJ should have instead determined whether the form I-213 established Mr. Bolivar's removability by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence, such that Mr. Bolivar, then on present, had the burden to establish his proper inspection and admission. In a footnote, the BIA notes that an I-213 isn't the only thing that can establish alienage under these circumstances. For example, DHS can use an affirmatively filed asylum application against a non-citizen and submit it as the non-citizen's admission to alienage. The BIA explains that actually DHS does not have to move or otherwise tell an IJ how it wants to proceed, as has always been understood, as I understand it. Rather, Mr. Bolivar's non-appearance itself triggered the inabsentia removal statute, thereby requiring the IJ to begin the inquiry. Quote, where the respondent is charged with being in the United States without having been admitted or paroled, neither the non-citizen nor DHS appears at the hearing, and the record contains evidence of alienage. The immigration judge errs in terminating removal proceedings rather than proceeding with an inabsentia hearing. DHS's appeal, therefore, was sustained. And that is a matter of bolivar, bolivar. I know I didn't. Yet here you are. H1B season in full swing, and your team is buried in beneficiary forms, document chasing, and data entry. That's $400 an hour in legal talent doing $20 an hour work. Staffi plugs directly into your workflow. Staffi handles the data entry, document collection, and H 1B form prep. Your team reviews it, you approve it, you bill. With the new wage-weighted selection process adding even more admin pressure this season, the firms that scale are the ones that stop doing it all themselves. Say yes to more H1B clients without burning out your team. Visit staffy.cc or call 786-891-5619 or click on the special link in the show notes. Because you deserve a practice that grows without burning you out. Next up is Gamas Vicente Vlanche, published by the Sixth Circuit on April 7, 2026. This case is about particular social groups.

unknown

Mr.

SPEAKER_00

Gamas Vicente is from Guatemala and came to the United States without authorization as a child. He was ordered removed when he didn't show up to a removal hearing, but an IJ would later grant a motion to reopen and rescind that removal order. I suspect because he was a child, but who knows? He applied for asylum and related relief and protection and removal proceedings based on a fear of the Mar 18 street gang, or criminal organization, and his Mayan ethnicity. But the IJ denied relief and protection. It's a gang recruitment or die case. And he was beat up pretty bad. And his sister was raped after he fled in what he believes retaliation. Really terrible, plus how the Guatemalan police treat ethnic Mayans and other indigenous peoples. The IJ and the VIA didn't believe any of these asserted particular social groups viable or one central reason for the harm, no nexus. And here, the Sixth Circuit agreed. Kind of. Actually, the Sixth Circuit believes that Mr. Gauz Vicente forfeited his arguments about the particular social groups he identified before the agency by failing to argue any of those groups to the Sixth Circuit, and that he failed to exhaust arguments related to the three new particular social groups that he asserted on petition for review. Pretty rush, but generally how petitions for review do work. Quote, to be sure, the four groups Mr. Gamas Vicente proposed before the agency might resemble and overlap the ones he proposed before this court, but mere resemblance isn't sufficient to conclude he presented them to the agency. Courts analyze the exact granular contours of a petitioner's proposed particular social groups. End quote. Say that five times fast. And tread carefully, folks. He can't add new modifiers on appeal. Modifiers, like here adding the word rural, to one of the particular social groups, quote, change the group's particularity and discreetness by narrowing potential members from the entire country to a more limited segment and increasing the likelihood that society would recognize it as a discrete social group. End quote. Particular social group arguments are all about the words, right? While this issue is dispositive, the Sixth Circuit spends a page addressing some other arguments. The Sixth Circuit quickly rejected Mr. Gamos Vicente's argument about the IJ mentioning discrepancies in the testimony, given that the IJ did deem Mr. Gamos Vicente credible and gave the testimony full weight. Indeed, as relayed by the Sixth Circuit, it seems the IJ was quite fair. On convention against torture, well, the Sixth Circuit believes Mr. Gamos Vicente waived that too. Concluding with a general due process claim, due to, quote, repeated and material deficiencies in interpretation and language access, end quote, as alleged. But to the court well, Mr. Gamos Vicente didn't exhaust that either to the BIA, never really arguing the issue besides mentioning some general interpretation issues in passing. And he did, by the way, have quote interpreters for both languages that he spoke. Aguacateco, his primary language, and Spanish. End quote. And with that, the Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review. And that is Gamas Vicente Vie Blanche. Moving on, we have Santana Gonzalez Vlanche, published by the Ninth Circuit on April 8th, 2026. This case is about asylum. Judge Van Dyke authored the opinion and then concurred with himself.

unknown

Mr.

SPEAKER_00

Santana is from Mexico and has lived in the United States since 2014 or 2015. During his last most recent attempt to come to the United States, he approached border officers in 2015 and requested asylum. He claimed to fear an anti-cartel group in Mexico, quote, according to Mr. Santana, this group, which called themselves Defensores of Guerrero, threatened to hurt Mr. Santana unless he joined either their group or a rival group, the Knights Templar Cartel, end quote. More to the story, too, and DHS placed him in removal proceedings in 2015, where he conceded removability and applied for asylum. Before the immigration judge, Mr. Santana also discussed that he was gay, which, in addition to his fear of the nationwide dangerous anti-cartel groups that have themselves become dangerous criminal groups, made his relocation impossible. And IJ denied the claim in 2015. The BIA dismissed an appeal in 2016, and the matter has remained pending at the Ninth Circuit ever since. Which is the panel's true gripe, or at least that of Judge Van Dyke's. But the Ninth Circuit doesn't believe that Mr. Santana made that argument to the BIA. Perhaps the reason is because Mr. Santana did not have an attorney before the IJ or BIA, something that the court mentions later on in the decision. Before getting to that, the Ninth Circuit discusses how even if Mr. Santana had tackled the BIA's decision on the merits, he would have failed. I didn't really do the facts before, but we'll touch on them now. Mr. Santana's father was extorted, he testified, but they were by unidentified criminals, and the BIA believed them motivated by pure financial gain. That lacks annexes to a protected ground, explains the Ninth Circuit. Quote, substantial evidence also supports the agency's determination that Mr. Santana's harassment from the Defensores of Guerrero was likewise unconnected

Matter of Shentu, 29 I&N Dec. 595 (BIA 2026)

SPEAKER_00

to any protected ground.

unknown

Mr.

SPEAKER_00

Santana never testified that this vigilante group pressured him to join because of protected ground, and even conceded that they were probably pressuring everyone to join, end quote. Remember, unrepresented before the IJ. Regarding sexual orientation, the discrimination Mr. Santana discussed doesn't rise to the level of past persecution, explains the court, something that Mr. Santana himself appears to have somewhat conceded, describing it all as, quote, normal discrimination, end quote. Recognizing that the Ninth Circuit has a lesser nexus standard for withholding of removal, the panel states that, quote, because the record does not compel a conclusion that Mr. Santana established any nexus between an asserted harm and a protected group, the record likewise does not compel the conclusion that a protected ground would be a reason for persecution sufficient to support withholding of removal, end quote. Emphasis by the court. On to the due process claim, then, that again was unexhausted. Quote, he, through counsel, argues that the IG denied him due process by failing to fully explain the hearing procedures, develop the record related to his sexuality, notify him that he should translate supporting evidence into English, remind him of his right to legal representation, and provide him with a competent interpreter, end quote. All seem legitimate arguments if accurate. Again, pro se. His pro se attempt by arguing that the IJ, quote, wrongfully made, end quote, findings against him, doesn't cut it for exhaustion to the court. Even for pro seas. And it all meant that Mr. Santana lost. Here's a little bit from Judge Van Dyke's concurrence. Judge Van Dyke concurred to lament the fact that Mr. Santana has been permitted to remain in the United States for the last 10 years, while his petition for review remains pending, calling this case and other cases that he has recently presided over, quote, meritless, end quote. Judge Van Dyke again criticizes the Ninth Circuit's procedures and policies for stays of removal, pending petition for review in immigration cases, picking back up on that fight. From Rojas Espinosa. Later on in his concurrence, Judge Van Dyke notes that the government affirmatively did not oppose Mr. Santana's stay request. And that is Santana Gonzalez V. Blanche. Not sure what to do when a client asks you about the EB5 investor visa or how they can choose the right EB5 project? That's where EB5 Support comes in. Founded and led by veteran immigration attorney Irina Pristova, EB5 Support helps investors navigate the entire process of EB5 project selection and provides complementary training for immigration attorneys who want to strengthen their EB5 petition filing skills. Visit eb5support.com. That's eB5support.com. Or click on the link in the show notes. Access their online attorney portal for training tools and practical resources, or schedule a time to speak with the team. All project guidance is provided by FINRA registered financial professionals so you and your clients can proceed with confidence. EB5 Support, where immigration law meets investment expertise. Security is offered through sequence financial specialists. Doing business has Invest America. Elevate your advocacy and storytelling skills at the annual Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College. Registration is now open. The annual Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College convenes every year in April only in Kansas City, Missouri, hosted by the Pen and Sword, that awesome community resource founded by Rake and Michael Sharma Crawford. This year, the program has been reimagined and reworked to address the current climate of aggressive deportation enforcement. These times are not ordinary, so the program had to be extraordinary. Expanding from three to four days, the trial college provides comprehensive training from beginning to end. Real cases taught by real litigators in real courtrooms. The skills you need, the confidence you deserve, and the mentors you look up to all in one place. Register early to avoid disappointment at www.thepen-and-swordkc.org or at the special links in the show notes. Use special code ImmigrationReview26 to get $50 off the Trial Advocacy College this year. That's Capital I, Capital R. Arriving at the end, we arrive with Mukhtar B. Lambreck et al. published by the Tenth Circuit on April 8th, 2026. This case

Matter of Orozco Becerra and Orozco Becerra, 29 I&N Dec. 600 (BIA 2026)

SPEAKER_00

is about mootness. Fascinating, I know. But there are interesting things along the way. Miss Mukhtar entered the United States as a refugee in 2010. As a condition of her admittance in the United States, she underwent a medical examination. The medical examination revealed that she had a quote Class B condition of major depressive disorder, subnormal mentality, and sickle cell disease. The medical examination also noted that she had, quote, psychotic symptoms, end quote. The examination noted no Class A conditions. We'll return to those classes later on. All of that therefore did not bar her admission in the United States as a refugee. But in 2011, she was arrested for kidnapping and abuse in Colorado and deemed incompetent to proceed in her criminal case. Spent some time in a mental health facility. It appears that it was all likely resolved without a conviction, and a year after her release from a mental health facility, she applied to adjust to LPR status, where the officer probably requested supervisory review. Looks like Miss Mukhtar didn't submit a medical examination on an I-693 either, as required. Might have been an oversight because she filed a mandamus action two years later. When USCS then scheduled an interview, she dismissed her lawsuit. USCS issued a request for evidence for the properly completed I-693 and more information on her arrests. Miss Mukhtar complied, although the decision says that she did so three years later, which seems strange. The I-693 doctor checked no Class A or Class B disorders. USCS denied the application, deeming the I-693 faulty for having, quote, failed to address her history of mental disorders and the potential for future harm. End quote. Can they do that though, if it's a qualified doctor filling out the I-693? Perhaps unsure. USCIS reopened and then denied again. Miss Mukhtar brought an APA mandamus and statutory challenge three years later, which is permitted. I think he gets six years? Lots of legal arguments made. But in response, two months after that, USCIS reopened the I-485 again and issued a new request for evidence for another form I-693. Then in this lawsuit, USCS moved to dismiss, arguing that the lawsuit was now moot. By the way, with the I-693 thing, the attorney did not comply with the RFE and sent a letter asking for more time to permit this lawsuit to play out. Dangerous strategy, and didn't succeed here as USCS denied for failure to respond to the RFE. Then USCIS moved to dismiss yet again. The district court, and now the 10th Circuit. Obliged. It's all moot. After all, Miss Mukhtar asked for the court to set aside its original decision, that is USCIS's original decision, in her complaint, which is what USCIS then did. It set it aside and issued a new one. Quote, no matter how venomently the parties continue to dispute the lawfulness of the conduct that precipitated the lawsuit, the case is moot if the dispute is no longer embedded in any actual controversy about the plaintiff's particular legal rights. Addressing Ms. Mukhtar's counter-arguments, the Tenth Circuit first explained that, quote, USCIS did not act without authority, ultra virus, when it reopened her lawful permanent resident status application,

Nimaga v. Blanche, No. 20-3065 (7th Cir. Apr. 29, 2026)

SPEAKER_00

end quote. Yes, the regulations require that USAS provide the opportunity to submit a brief or otherwise respond when USAS is going to make an adverse decision. That's usually in the form of annoyed, right? But here, USCIS did that sufficiently with the RFE, giving time to submit the requested evidence and much more than the minimum 30 days at that. Addressing other stuff, the court explains that a claim for each of these is not a separate claim for relief that can save an otherwise moot complaint. Nor is the generic request for, quote, any other relief that this court deems reasonable and proper, end quote, that we all throw into our complaints really mean anything. Finally, Ms. Mukhtar urges for federal court intervention given that this is an action capable of repetition yet evading review. And that is indeed a potential exception to the mootness doctrine. Well, the Tenth Circuit doesn't see it. Quote, plaintiff can still meaningfully challenge the May 2024 decision in a different action. Indeed, she could have challenged the decision in this action had she sought to amend her complaint after USCAS reopened her application. But she never did. And quote, gonna run into Patel problems though, aren't you? And I suppose the argument is that USCAS could then turn around and request what would now be a sixth I-693? But the Tenth Circuit doesn't discuss that part of the capable of repetition yet evading review argument. Cross that bridge if we get there, I suppose. Meaning the case remains dismissed. But hey, looks like Miss Mukhtar probably isn't removable and can simply reapply yet again. And given the opportunity. I thought I'd discuss this, given that medical inadmissibility doesn't ever come up on the podcast. So here's this from a Tenth Circuit footnote, citing to the regulations and INA. Quote Class A conditions are medical conditions that render a non-citizen inadmissible and ineligible for a visa or adjustment of status. Class B conditions are physical or mental conditions, diseases or disability, serious in degree or permanent in nature. Class B conditions, although not rendering an applicant inadmissible, represent a departure from normal health or well-being that may be significant enough to interfere with the applicant's ability to care for herself or to require extensive medical treatment or institutionalization in the future. End quote. There you go. Learn something every day. And that is Mukhtar Vilain Breath et al. So there you have it. You're all caught up with the past week's published immigration cases. I'm Kevin A. Gregg, a partner with the law firm Kurzban, Kurzban, Titselli, and Pratt, and this has been another episode of Immigration Review. Thank you for listening, and I hope you enjoyed it. If you did, please share it with a friend and rate and review us. Each review helps new listeners find the show. And of course, subscribe to Immigration Review wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what we do and want to become a patron of the show, please check out our Patreon page at www.patreon.com forward slash immigration review or click on the link in the show notes. And if you're interested in an official Immigration Review CLE certificate, email me at kgreg at kktplaw.com with your full name and the episode numbers for the 10 shows you've listened to. Also, feel free to email me with questions, comments, or anything at all, and follow the show on Instagram and Facebook at ImmigrationReview or send us a tweet at Imreview. That's IMM Review. And you know we're always interested in hearing listener feedback. Like this review about the episode you just listened to from my very young son. Son, how did you like that episode? Indeed. If you like my son, enjoyed what you just heard again, please give the Patreon payer some love, feel free to review the pod, reach out to me with your own kind sounds, or do anything else nice that your heart desires. I'll be back next week for a brand new discussion. Until then, I'm Kevin A. Gregg, bringing you the Immigration Review.