One of the most difficult and highly complex areas of immigration law is Removal Proceedings, formerly known as Deportation Proceedings. Often an individual’s most important rights are at stake in these proceedings – their ability to live and work in the United States is at jeopardy. Their ability to come back to this country, or for that matter, even visit this country is often called into question, sometime for long periods of time, often for the duration of these individuals’ lives.
Hiring an experienced and knowledgeable immigration lawyer can make all the difference in the world. At The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC, it is our number one priority to protect our clients’ best interest by providing experienced, knowledgeable, and aggressive representation in removal or deportation proceedings, while making sure that no client of ours is unjustly deported or removed from the United States.
For most of the people who carry one, a green card feels like a settled fact. It is the document that says a person belongs here, that a trip to visit family abroad is just a trip, and that coming home is coming home. On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court reminded the country that the law underneath that feeling is more fragile than it looks.
On May 19, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of I-B-M-S-, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 628 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4193, an interlocutory decision that meaningfully tightens the standards for changing venue in removal proceedings. The case came up from the Boston Immigration Court, where the Immigration Judge had granted an oral, day-of-hearing motion to transfer the matter to Chelmsford, Massachusetts after direct examination of the lead respondent had already begun.
Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) imposes a non-derogable obligation on States Parties: no signatory may return a person to a country where that person faces a substantial risk of torture.
Immigration appeals sometimes outlive the appellant’s physical presence in the United States. Yet Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) regulations include a “withdrawal-by-departure” rule: 8 C.F.R. § 1003.4 provides that a respondent’s “departure” after taking an appeal, but before a Board decision, “shall constitute a withdrawal of the appeal.”
