The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of the United States established in a new decision that immigration judges are not required to automatically accept as true the facts that a person presents in a sworn statement when applying for the reopening of their proceedings.
Judges can assess whether that explanation is credible, coherent, sufficiently detailed, and consistent with the other circumstances of the case, even when a new hearing is not held to examine the request.
The resolution, identified as Matter of J-E-D-C-, 30 I&N Dec. 162 (BIA 2026), is precedent-setting within the U.S. administrative immigration system.
This means that it establishes a criterion for resolving similar cases, although its application must respect the binding judicial decisions of the relevant federal courts.
The measure may affect immigrants of various nationalities, including Cubans who have deportation orders issued in absentia and are seeking a second chance to present their case.
What does this change mean in practice?
When an immigrant fails to attend their hearing before an immigration court, the judge can order their deportation in their absence. This is known as an in absentia deportation order.
The law allows for the reopening of the proceedings under certain circumstances. For example, when a person can demonstrate that an exceptional situation prevented them from attending or that they did not receive the legally required notification.
To justify their request, the immigrant can submit a sworn statement explaining what happened.
The new decision from the BIA clarifies that the judge is not compelled to accept that explanation as true simply because it was presented under oath.
You can examine whether the account makes sense, if it contains sufficient details, if it presents contradictions, or if there are other elements in the file that cast doubt on the statement.
This does not mean that sworn declarations cease to be valid as evidence or that everyone is required to submit additional documents.
A statement may be sufficient under certain circumstances, but its value will depend on the content, the facts of the case, and the applicable regulations.
The case of an immigrant who claimed to have been deceived
The decision arose from the case of an immigrant identified as J-E-D-C-, who did not attend a scheduled immigration hearing in October 2025.
According to the record, he had personally received, in April 2024, a summons with the date, time, and location of the hearing, as well as information in Spanish regarding his obligation to appear.
As he did not appear, the judge ordered his deportation in absentia.
Subsequently, the immigrant requested for his case to be reopened. He claimed that another person had deceived him and made him believe that he did not have to go to court.
However, the explanation did not convince the immigration authorities.
The BIA confirmed the decision to deny the reopening, considering that the presented elements were insufficient to support the claims made.
Among the evidence reviewed was a journalistic article published about a decade earlier, which the applicant had used to support their arguments.
The Board also examined issues related to their possibilities of obtaining asylum, suspension of deportation, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
The case illustrates the central point of the resolution: it is not necessarily sufficient to claim that there was an impediment to attending the hearing; the judge can assess whether the explanation is convincing in light of the case file.
Why did the BIA make this decision?
So far, one of the points of contention has been the criteria used by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for certain reopening requests.
According to that criterion, when a request was resolved without holding a hearing, the facts stated in a sworn declaration were to be accepted as true, unless they were inherently incredible.
In simple terms, this provided the applicant with significant protection: their claims could not be dismissed easily without a hearing.
The BIA rejected the notion that this criterion should be applied automatically in its own administrative evaluation.
To justify his position, he cited two decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States: INS v. Abudu (1988) and Garland v. Ming Dai (2021), related to the analysis of immigration applications and the evaluation of statements from the parties involved.
Nonetheless, the decision of the BIA does not allow for ignoring the binding precedents of the federal appellate courts. Therefore, the scope of this criterion may also depend on the jurisdiction where the case is processed.
How can it affect Cuban immigrants?
The resolution may be particularly significant for Cubans attempting to reopen a deportation order issued for failing to appear at a hearing.
For example, an immigrant who claims to have been hospitalized, who did not receive a notification, or who was misled about the date of their hearing must explain the circumstances of their absence and meet the relevant legal requirements.
Depending on what has occurred, medical reports, notification records, proof of address changes, detention certificates, or other documents that help support your account may be important.
Not all of those documents are mandatory in every case. What matters is that the explanation is credible enough and supported by the available evidence.
It is also necessary to clarify that this decision does not mean that all Cubans with I-220A or parole have orders of deportation in absentia, nor does it automatically change their immigration status.
For such an order to exist, there must have been a judicial decision in the corresponding procedure. The situation of each immigrant depends on their history, the notifications received, and the resolutions issued in their case.
How much time is there to request the reopening of a deportation order?
The deadline to request a reopening depends on the reason why the immigrant did not attend their hearing.
If you claim exceptional circumstances, such as certain serious issues that prevented you from appearing, the general rule establishes a deadline of 180 days from the date of the deportation order.
If you claim that you did not receive the notification required by law, there may be the possibility to request a reopening without being subject to the ordinary limit of 180 days, as long as you meet the legal requirements.
There is also a pathway for certain immigrants who were in federal or state custody and whose absence from the hearing was not their fault.
These possibilities do not mean that the court is obligated to reopen the case.
Each application must meet the conditions set forth by immigration legislation, and the judge must evaluate the arguments and evidence presented.
Other recent decisions of the BIA
The resolution is part of a series of prior decisions issued by the Immigration Appeals Board in October 2026.
Among them is Matter of M-S-V-, related to the requirements for obtaining a immigration bond.
Also included is Matter of L. Ramirez, regarding requests to defer immigration proceedings while specific petitions or benefits are pending.
In the case of deportation orders in absentia, the main consequence of the new decision is that immigrants must pay special attention to how they explain and support the reasons for not attending their hearing.
A sworn statement remains a valid tool, but the judge can examine its credibility and determine whether it is sufficient to justify the reopening.
Therefore, those who have an order of deportation in absentia and wish to contest it should review the deadlines and available legal options with an immigration attorney as soon as possible. An insufficient explanation or a request submitted after the applicable deadline may hinder the possibility of the case being reexamined.
Related videos:
Filed under: