Below are BIA remands from January of 2025 to December of 2025, followed by a summary of basis for remands:

Pearsall Immigration Court: BIA Remands, January to December 2025
Reasons for Remand, With Quotations

Fifteen BIA decisions from the Pearsall, TX Immigration Court were remanded (or vacated and remanded) during 2025. Numbers are FOIA reading room document IDs from the file names. Nationality is as stated in each decision. Quotations are from text-recognized scans, corrected only for obvious character-recognition errors; page cites (“Dec. at”) are to the page of the PDF.

Jan. 27, 2025  |  No. 5503759  |  Nicaragua

Withholding-only; pro se; panel (Kludt, writing; Clark; O’Connor concurring in part and dissenting in part)

Basis: Adverse credibility and persecution findings reversed; remanded on nexus and CAT.

“We will reverse the adverse credibility finding because it is clearly erroneous” (Dec. at 2).

“We conclude that the Immigration Judge clearly erred because he did not cite to evidence of record to explain why it is implausible for the police to have refrained from arresting the applicant at his house or sports academy” (Dec. at 2).

We reverse the Immigration Judge’s determination. We conclude that the persistent threats the applicant received, as well as the 4-day detention that he suffered, during which the police beat him and electrocuted him, and after which his neighbor and the police continued to pursue him at his house, demonstrates that he was the victim of an organized, systematic campaign of intimidation and pursuit. See Aben v. Garland, 113 F.4th 457, 466 (5th Cir. 2024). Thus, we conclude that the applicant has established past harm rising to the level of persecution”.

 “We will remand the record to the Immigration Judge to assess in the first instance whether the applicant established that the Nicaraguan government harmed him on account of his political opinion” (Dec. at 3).

“The Immigration Judge should also reassess the applicant’s eligibility for protection under the CAT on remand” (Dec. at 3).

Jan. 27, 2025  |  No. 5506664  |  Syria

Removal; counsel; panel (LeMelle, writing; Lopez; Saenz)

Basis: Past persecution established as a matter of law; remanded to apply the presumption.

“We reverse the Immigration Judge’s determination that the respondent did not establish past persecution” (Dec. at 2).

“it is the government itself, not a private party acting alone, that persecuted the respondent in the past, and which the respondent fears will persecute him in the future” (Dec. at 3).

“We will remand the record to the Immigration Judge to apply the requisite presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution and allow DHS an opportunity to rebut the presumption” (Dec. at 3).

Feb. 5, 2025  |  No. 5506809  |  Iran

Removal; counsel on appeal, pro se below; single member (Saenz)

Basis: Insufficient findings; unaddressed claims and new evidence.

“We determine that a remand is required because the Immigration Judge’s decision does not currently contain sufficient factual findings or legal analysis to allow for meaningful appellate review” (Dec. at 1).

“Despite noting that the respondent fears the Iranian government, the Immigration Judge did not address this claim and only analyzed the respondent’s claim of persecution from his girlfriend’s family” (Dec. at 2).

“the Immigration Judge did not elicit testimony as to this claim while the respondent was pro se, and did not address it in his decision” (Dec. at 2).

“The Immigration Judge should consider this evidence, along with relevant country conditions, on remand” (Dec. at 2).

Feb. 19, 2025  |  No. 5505122  |  Honduras

Withholding-only; pro se below; panel (Nahas, writing; LeMelle; Mullane dissenting without opinion)

Basis: Wrong framework for harm inflicted by police officers.

            “Those same three police officers returned to his house 3 days later, stabbed and pulled a gun on the applicant, told him to get in their vehicle, put a bag over his head while they                drove him to a dump where they proceeded to beat the applicant, threatened him, and             called him a snitch.”

            “As to withholding of removal, the Immigration Judge determined that the applicant did   not show that harm he experienced rose to the level of persecution

“the Immigration Judge’s focus on the government’s efforts to prosecute corruption (IJ at 8-9) is misplaced where the 2023 incident was inflicted by police officers” (Dec. at 3).”

“on remand, the Immigration Judge should determine if the police officers were able to engage in the conduct because of their government position, even if low-level, or whether the officers could have done so without connection to the government” (Dec. at 3).

“Thus, on remand, the Immigration Judge should decide the other requirements of withholding of removal, such as whether the applicant demonstrated that the harm he experienced and fears is on account of a protected ground, including membership in a particular social group” (Dec. at 2).

Feb. 20, 2025  |  No. 5506888  |  Syria

Removal; pro se; panel (LeMelle, writing; Nahas; Mullane dissenting without opinion)

Basis: Nexus analysis incomplete as to mixed motives.

            “We reverse the Immigration Judge’s defemination that the respondent did not establish    past persecution The hnrnigration Judge determined that the respondent did not suffer            harm rising to the level of persecution because the beating, attempted kidnapping, and             death threats did not involve serious threats to his life or freedom, or the infliction of        significant harm (IJ at 11-12). The Immigration Judge found that the threats were       exaggerated, non-specific, and not immediate (IJ at 12). The Inmigration Judge found       that the harm amomted to harassment (IJ at 12). We disagree”

“we conclude a remand is necessary for the Immigration Judge to reassess whether the respondent established that the remaining harm was motivated by a protected ground” (Dec. at 2).

“As the respondent has identified evidence relevant to his asserted persecutors’ motive that was not addressed by the Immigration Judge, and given this inquiry involves fact-finding, which the Board is not permitted to do, a remand is necessary” (Dec. at 2).

“The parties may submit, and the Immigration Judge should consider, any evidence of changed country conditions, including a change in regime” (Dec. at 3).

May 20, 2025  |  No. 5498856  |  El Salvador

Removal (CAT deferral); counsel; panel (O’Connor, writing; Goodwin; Mullane dissenting without opinion); third trip to the Board

Basis: Credibility conflated with corroboration; prior remand instructions not followed.

“The Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding played a key role in the analysis of the respondent’s request for CAT protection, leading the Immigration Judge to discredit the respondent’s entire testimony” (Dec. at 3-4).

“We will therefore remand proceedings for the Immigration Judge to re-assess credibility and corroboration as separate issues” (Dec. at 3).

“In addition, a remand is required because the Immigration Judge did not comply with our previous remand instructions, despite referring to them (IJ at 2)” (Dec. at 4).

June 13, 2025  |  No. 5382477  |  Sudan

Removal; counsel; panel (Mullane, writing; Creppy; Goodwin); second remand in the case

Basis: Nexus finding reversed; past persecution established.

“We reverse the Immigration Judge’s nexus finding” (Dec. at 2).

“establish that at least one central reason why the officials detained and tortured him was on account of his imputed political opinion” (Dec. at 2).

“We conclude that the respondent has established past persecution as a matter of law” (Dec. at 2).

“We will remand the record to the Immigration Judge to apply the requisite presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution and allow DHS an opportunity to rebut the presumption” (Dec. at 2).

July 17, 2025  |  No. 5534151  |  El Salvador

Removal; counsel; panel (Hunsucker, writing; McCloskey; Gemoets)

Basis: Cancellation only; § 1325 conviction is not a (43)(N) aggravated felony.

“Upon our de novo review, we agree with the respondent that his offenses are not aggravated felonies under section 101(a)(43)(N) of the INA” (Dec. at 3).

“As the respondent emphasizes on appeal, he was not convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1324, but under 8 U.S.C. § 1325” (Dec. at 3).

“we will remand the record for the Immigration Judge to determine whether the respondent otherwise meets the statutory requirements for cancellation of removal and merits that relief in the exercise of discretion” (Dec. at 4).

“We will dismiss the respondent’s appeal of the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection” (Dec. at 4).

July 25, 2025  |  No. 5535726  |  Cuba

Removal; counsel; panel (McCloskey, writing; Malphrus; Mullane)

Basis: Adverse credibility finding clearly erroneous.

“We conclude that the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding is clearly erroneous under the totality of the circumstances as it is not adequately supported by specific and cogent reasons” (Dec. at 2).

“the Immigration Judge failed to provide a sufficient opportunity to the respondent to explain the seeming discrepancy” (Dec. at 2).

“The Immigration Judge did not adequately explain why the explanation was unreasonable” (Dec. at 2).

“On remand, the Immigration Judge should comprehensively assess the credibility of the respondent anew” (Dec. at 2).

Aug. 13, 2025  |  No. 5498862  |  El Salvador

Withholding-only; counsel; panel (Malphrus, writing; Mullane; Goodwin)

Basis: Adverse credibility finding not affirmable.

“we conclude the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding is not affirmable as constituted, and we will remand the record” (Dec. at 3).

“Although the use of a false identity at the border is a proper consideration, it is not sufficient to alone support the adverse credibility finding, particularly given the other issues discussed above” (Dec. at 4-5).

“The Immigration Judge should issue a new decision which separately addresses credibility and whether the applicant’s corroborating evidence is sufficient to meet his burden of proof for withholding of removal under the INA” (Dec. at 5).

Sept. 26, 2025  |  No. 5532649  |  Turkey

Removal; counsel (this office); panel (Hunsucker, writing; Gemoets; McCloskey)

Basis: Nexus, particular social group, and CAT lawful-sanctions analysis.

“On remand, the Immigration Judge should determine whether the harm the respondent claimed to have suffered, and the harm he fears, is on account of a ground enumerated in the ‘refugee’ definition” (Dec. at 3).

“On remand, the Immigration Judge should reassess whether the respondent’s membership in his particular social group is so fundamental to his identity that he should not be required to change” (Dec. at 3).

“On remand, the Immigration Judge should address whether the sanctions to which the respondent was subjected are excluded from the definition of lawful sanctions because they defeat the object and purpose of the CAT” (Dec. at 4).

“the Immigration Judge should fully engage with the country conditions evidence presented, including those that address the likelihood of the respondent being harmed and jailed as a supporter of the Gulen movement and for his prior violations of law” (Dec. at 4).

Oct. 10, 2025  |  No. 5566203  |  Iran

Removal; counsel; panel (Hunsucker, writing; Malphrus; Gemoets)

Basis: Credibility of religious conversion; CAT; new evidence.

“Upon remand, the Immigration Judge should clarify his findings regarding the credibility of the respondent’s claimed conversion to Christianity” (Dec. at 3).

“We will also remand for further consideration of the Immigration Judge’s denial of the respondent’s application for protection under the CAT” (Dec. at 3).

“we will grant the motion to remand for the Immigration Judge to address this new evidence, determine its credibility, and issue a new decision” (Dec. at 3).

Oct. 31, 2025  |  No. 5542163  |  El Salvador

Removal (CAT deferral only); counsel; panel (Malphrus, writing; Mullane; Gemoets)

Basis: CAT findings insufficient; combined characteristics and aggregate risk.

“We conclude that the Immigration Judge’s decision does not contain sufficient findings of fact for our appellate review” (Dec. at 2).

“The decision does not show that the Immigration Judge made specific factual findings about what will happen to the respondent upon his removal” (Dec. at 2).

“The Immigration Judge should also consider if the combination of the respondent’s characteristics, namely his gang tattoos and his sexual orientation, impacts the likelihood of future torture analysis” (Dec. at 2-3).

“the Immigration Judge should consider the aggregate risk of torture from all sources” (Dec. at 3).

Nov. 5, 2025  |  No. 5536908  |  Afghanistan

Removal; pro se below, counsel on appeal; panel (Hunsucker, writing; Gemoets; Volkert)

Basis: Appeal waiver not knowing and intelligent.

“Although the Immigration Judge found that the pro se respondent waived appeal, the record does not demonstrate that the respondent’s waiver was knowing and intelligent” (Dec. at 1).

“did not adequately demonstrate that the respondent understood that he was irrevocably waiving his right to appeal” (Dec. at 2).

“Upon receipt of the record, the Immigration Judge shall issue a full and complete decision with the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law” (Dec. at 2).

Dec. 8, 2025  |  No. 5612999  |  Not stated in decision

Removal; counsel; single member (Mann)

Basis: Error regarding annual asylum fee.

“Due to an error in the decision regarding when the annual asylum fees are due and payable, the Immigration Judge’s [redacted] 2025, decision is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further consideration of the merits of the respondent’s applications for asylum and related relief and protection” (Dec. at 1).