Asylum & Refugee Protection

In Matter of F-B-A-, 29 I. & N. Dec. 456 (B.I.A. 2026), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that the “unique barriers” children face in reporting abuse to authorities do not extend to adults—even adults describing childhood harm—when adjudicators assess whether the state is “unable or unwilling” to protect against private-actor persecution.

In early 2026, under the Trump administration—which took office on January 20, 2025—a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy has materialized. A long-delayed regulation, finalized on December 29, 2025, and effective as of December 31, 2025, empowers the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny asylum and withholding of removal to individuals deemed a public health risk.

In recent years, Russia has seen a significant rise in political repression, making it a common origin for asylum seekers in the U.S. Individuals facing persecution due to their political opinions, opposition to government policies, or refusal to participate in military actions may qualify for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, two different—and often confused—legal systems have driven manpower: ordinary mandatory conscription (prizyv) and mobilization (mobilizatsiya). The Ukraine war made this distinction practically crucial: conscription decides who enters initial service, while mobilization decides who can be recalled (and kept) under wartime-type rules.

In the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, which began in February 2022 and has now entered its fifth year as of 2026, Russia’s military mobilization efforts have profound implications for human rights and international asylum claims. An expert opinion by Stanislav Stanskikh, a legal scholar and research fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Harvard University’s Davis Center, provides critical insights into Russia’s country conditions, particularly regarding draft evasion and forced military service.

In asylum cases in Immigration Court, the record often becomes the case. Some applicants win because their story is compelling and consistent; others lose because the IJ cannot connect the story to the legal elements—or because “common sense” assumptions fill gaps that evidence should have filled.