Second Circuit forces BIA merits analysis
The Second Circuit held the BIA must analyze the merits of an asylum claim even when the applicant appears barred by the material‑support terrorism ground — preserving a record for potential future waivers. (sabrinadamast.com)
Sufiyan v. Bondi, No. 22-6392, was argued Oct. 29, 2024 and decided March 12, 2026 by a Second Circuit panel of Judges Kearse, Sullivan, and Robinson. (cases.justia.com) The petitioner, Mohamed Irshan Mohamed Sufiyan, is a Sri Lankan national who testified he was forcibly detained and compelled to translate for members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 2009 before arriving in the United States in 2014. (tampafp.com) The Immigration Judge found Sufiyan’s compelled translation constituted “material support” to the LTTE and the BIA affirmed that material‑support finding while declining to decide the underlying asylum and statutory‑withholding merits. (cases.justia.com) The Second Circuit granted the petition in part and remanded, instructing the BIA to make a “but‑for” merits determination — i.e., whether Sufiyan would be eligible for asylum or withholding if the material‑support bar did not apply — so the DHS exemption process can be pursued. (casemine.com) The court simultaneously denied review of the agency’s denial of withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, and Judge Sullivan filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. (law.justia.com) Petitioner’s counsel on the brief was Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran; the government brief was filed by Stefanie Notarino Hennes of the DOJ National Security Unit, and Human Rights First appeared as amicus supporting the petitioner. (cases.justia.com)
