Third Circuit Walters v. Garland, No. 24-XXXX (3d Cir. Oct. 27, 2025) (unpublished) October 27, 2025 The court denied Bridget Walters' petition for review of the BIA's denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Walters sought reopening based on new evidence of changed country conditions in her home country, but the BIA found the motion untimely and lacking sufficient evidence of diligence. The panel affirmed, holding that equitable tolling did not apply due to Walters' failure to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing her claims earlier.
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov
Ninth Circuit Cmty. Legal Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 25-2808 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2025) (published; note: issued early in the week but within the 7-day window from Oct. 22) October 10, 2025 In a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act, the court vacated and remanded a district court order enjoining HHS and ORR policies limiting legal representation for unaccompanied immigrant children in removal proceedings. The panel held that the district court erred in finding the policies arbitrary and capricious, as they aligned with statutory limits on federal funding for non-governmental counsel. However, the court directed further review of due process claims, emphasizing that access to counsel remains protected regardless of funding source.
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov
Eleventh Circuit Torres-Rodriguez v. Garland, No. 24-13008 (11th Cir. Oct. 27, 2025) (unpublished) October 27, 2025 The court dismissed Maria Torres-Rodriguez's petition for review of the BIA's affirmance of an IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The panel upheld findings that Torres-Rodriguez failed to establish a nexus between feared persecution and a protected ground (e.g., membership in a particular social group or imputed political opinion), as evidence showed harm stemmed from general criminality rather than a statutorily protected basis. The "more likely than not" standard for withholding was also unmet due to insufficient evidence of future harm.
media.ca11.uscourts.gov
No immigration-related opinions were issued in the last week from the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, D.C., or Federal Circuits. For context, earlier October decisions (e.g., Tenth Circuit's Ramos v. Garland on Oct. 15, affirming asylum denial for lack of nexus ca10.uscourts.gov)

Summary via Grok