By RAICES Public Affairs Director Javier Hidalgo, Esq.
TL;DR In Matter of J-E-D-C-, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected federal court precedent by ruling that adjudicators are no longer required to accept a respondent's affidavit as true when evaluating motions to reopen in absentia removal orders. This decision significantly raises the evidentiary burden for asylum seekers and raises serious constitutional questions about executive overreach.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: In Matter of J-E-D-C-, the BIA held that adjudicators evaluating motions to reopen in absentia removal orders are not required to accept a respondent's affidavit as true. Alarmingly, the BIA rejected a Federal Court mandate requiring these facts to be accepted unless "inherently unbelievable," raising grave concerns about the agency's authority to disregard judicial precedent.
Rationale: The BIA explicitly rejected the Ninth Circuit's standard, asserting that intervening Supreme Court precedent (INS v. Abudu and Garland v. Ming Dai) overrides the circuit's mandate. The Board reasoned that presuming an affidavit's truth restricts a judge's ability to determine if a respondent met the "heavy burden" for reopening. Judges may now evaluate affidavit reliability based on the totality of circumstances, effectively answering a legal question typically reserved for Article III courts.
RAICES Impact: RAICES legal representatives filing motions to reopen for clients ordered removed in absentia should consider the need to gather extensive external corroborating evidence. Judges are empowered to subject affidavits to rigorous credibility assessments rather than accepting them at face value, meaning standalone sworn statements are of lessened value.
Community Impact: This ruling imposes a severely heightened evidentiary burden on asylum seekers. Individuals who miss hearings due to genuine misunderstandings—such as translation errors or confusing notices—face a much higher risk of immediate deportation. Allowing judges to reject sworn explanations strips noncitizens of a critical procedural safeguard.
Related Legal Battles: This decision invites litigation over an administrative agency's authority to disregard circuit precedent, setting the stage for direct inter-branch conflict. The BIA is resisting direct Ninth Circuit precedent which explicitly states, "[a] BIA decision cannot displace our precedent" (Trigueros Quizar v. Blanche, 2026). Furthermore, as the Seventh Circuit warned in Baez-Sanchez v. Barr (2020), “it should not be necessary to remind the Board, all of whose members are lawyers, that the “judicial Power” under Article III of the Constitution is one to make conclusive decisions, not subject to disapproval or revision by another branch of government.”
Broader Immigration Strategy: By bypassing protective circuit precedent to empower judges to reject sworn statements, the administration is deliberately eroding fundamental due process rights. This restricts challenges to unjust in absentia removal orders and weaponizes the immigration court system to prioritize rapid enforcement over fairness. This startling executive overreach necessitates judicial intervention to correct the agency's misapprehension of its own authority, echoing the exact concerns outlined in the file BIA claims power it does not have.
