Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 422 (BIA 2026)

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 422 (BIA 2026)

Interim Decision #4160

Matter of E-A-S-O-, Respondent

Decided January 30, 2026

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

The Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 336 (BIA 2007), framework is the proper rubric for

determining whether a crime is particularly serious and there is no presumption that a single

misdemeanor conviction is not for a particularly serious crime. Matter of Juarez, 19 I&N

Dec. 664 (BIA 1988), overruled.

FOR THE RESPONDENT: Bradley Jenkins, Esquire, Washington, D.C.

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Kevin L. Leahy, Assistant

Chief Counsel

BEFORE: Board Panel: HUNSUCKER and GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judges.

Concurring Opinion: MULLANE, Appellate Immigration Judge.

GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judge:

In a decision dated October 9, 2024, the Immigration Judge denied the

respondent’s applications for adjustment of status under section 245 of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (2024), asylum

and withholding of removal under sections 208(b)(1)(A) and 241(b)(3)(A)

of the INA, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A) (2024), and protection

under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). 1 The respondent appealed that decision, and the Department of

Homeland Security opposes the appeal. On July 23, 2025, we issued a

request for supplemental briefing on the continued viability of Matter of

Juarez, 19 I&N Dec. 664 (BIA 1988). Both parties submitted supplemental

briefs. 2 We will dismiss the appeal.

The respondent, a native and citizen of Honduras, applied for adjustment

of status based upon his approved special immigrant juvenile visa. He also

applied for fear-based relief, asserting that he suffered past harm and feared

1

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into

force for United States Nov. 20, 1994). 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17 (2025); 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.18(a) (2020).

2

We acknowledge with appreciation the supplemental briefs submitted by the parties.

Page

422

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 422 (BIA 2025)

Interim Decision #4160

future harm on account of his membership in multiple particular social

groups and his political opinion. During his merits hearing, he testified that

he endured abuse from his father for several years as a child and that he also

received threats from the MS-13 gang, who he believes killed his

brother-in-law. The respondent further testified that he fears harm from

Honduran police because of his tattoos. He also testified that in 2022, he was

convicted in the United States for three counts of sexual abuse of a minor

pursuant to section 22-3010.01 of the District of Columbia Code. 3

The Immigration Judge denied the respondent’s application for

adjustment of status, finding that he did not merit relief in the exercise of

discretion. He also found that the respondent’s conviction for misdemeanor

sexual abuse of a minor constitutes a particularly serious crime barring him

from asylum and withholding of removal. The Immigration Judge

alternatively found that the respondent did not demonstrate harm rising to the

level of persecution, a nexus between his asserted harm and a protected

ground, or an objectively reasonable fear of future harm. Finally, the

Immigration Judge denied CAT protection, finding that the respondent did

not establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the Honduran Government.

I. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS

Adjustment of status is a discretionary form of relief from removal. INA

§ 245(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The respondent bears the burden of

establishing that he merits an exercise of discretion. INA § 240(c)(4)(A)(ii),

8 U.S.C. §1229a(c)(4)(A)(ii) (2024). We review discretionary decisions de

novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2025).

In denying the respondent’s application for adjustment of status as a

matter of discretion, the Immigration Judge did not clearly err in finding that

the respondent’s testimony regarding his criminal history was not credible.

See Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 357, 366 (2021) (explaining that an

Immigration Judge is permitted to make a complete or partial adverse

credibility determination); see also Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285, 309

(2017) (holding that under clear error review, an appellate court may reverse

only when “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed” (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564,

573–74 (1985))). The Immigration Judge permissibly found that the

respondent was evasive and minimized his culpability regarding the factual

3

Consistent with the Immigration Judge’s decision, we will refer to the respondent’s

conviction for three counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the singular.

Page

423

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 422 (BIA 2025)

Interim Decision #4160

circumstances underlying his conviction for sexual abuse of a child. Even if

the Immigration Judge erred in finding the respondent knew his victim’s age,

the respondent otherwise acknowledges on appeal that his testimony

conflicted with the arrest warrant. Given the varying accounts and ambiguity

in the record, the Immigration Judge’s partial adverse credibility finding

specific to the respondent’s account of his criminal history is not clearly

erroneous. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i).

The respondent’s recent criminal conviction and attempts to minimize his

culpability before the Immigration Judge weigh heavily against a favorable

exercise of discretion. See Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785, 793

(BIA 2009) (discussing discretionary factors for adjustment of status). Based

on the reliable, independent evidence pertaining to the respondent’s

conviction, the Immigration Judge did not clearly err in finding that the

respondent pressured a 15-year-old victim to engage in sexual activity,

provided her with marijuana, and caused the victim to contract a sexually

transmitted infection. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). The respondent’s

inability to provide a credible account as to the underlying circumstances of

his offense also necessarily undermines his expressed remorse and stated

desire for rehabilitation.

The Immigration Judge also considered the positive factors in the

respondent’s case but concluded that they did not overcome the respondent’s

significant criminal history and lack of remorse or rehabilitation. See

Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494, 496 (BIA 1970) (“Where adverse factors

are present in a given application [for adjustment of status], it may be

necessary for the applicant to offset these by a showing of unusual or even

outstanding equities.”). The Immigration Judge properly identified and

considered the respondent’s long-term residence in the United States starting

at a young age and his family ties, including his United States citizen son, as

significant equities. See id.

The respondent asserts on appeal that the Immigration Judge did not

consider all relevant hardship factors, including the childhood abuse he

experienced at the hands of his father, which forms the basis of his eligibility

for adjustment of status, and the adverse country conditions in Honduras.

Evidence of hardship to the respondent if removal occurs is a relevant

favorable factor in a discretionary analysis. Id. Notably, the Immigration

Judge found without clear error that, by the respondent’s own account, he

has not had contact with his father since departing Honduras and there is little

evidence to suggest that this would change in the future. The Immigration

Judge also found without clear error that although the respondent was harmed

by gang members when he was a child, this, along with the country

Page

424

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 422 (BIA 2025)

Interim Decision #4160

conditions evidence provided, did not persuasively show that he will be

targeted for future harm as an adult. Thus, the respondent has not

demonstrated that he would suffer significant hardship upon return to

Honduras.

The respondent further argues that the Immigration Judge erred in finding

that he did not have steady work history. Even if the Immigration Judge did

clearly err in this regard, this factor is insufficient to alter the discretion

calculus given the strong negative factors in this case. Thus, upon de novo

review and considering all relevant factors, we affirm the Immigration

Judge’s denial of adjustment of status in the exercise of discretion.

II. ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL

Turning to the respondent’s applications for asylum and withholding of

removal under the INA and the CAT, the Immigration Judge found that the

respondent has been convicted of a particularly serious crime, thereby

barring his eligibility. See INA §§ 208(b)(2)(A)(ii), 241(b)(3)(B)(ii),

8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(2)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2)(i)

(2025). The respondent was convicted of misdemeanor sexual abuse of a

minor or child pursuant to section 22-3010.01 of the District of Columbia

Code. At all relevant times, the statute of conviction stated: “Whoever,

being 18 years of age or older and more than 4 years older than a child, or

being 18 years of age or older and being in a significant relationship with a

minor, engages in sexually suggestive conduct with that child or minor shall

be imprisoned for not more than 180 days . . . .” D.C. Code Ann.

§ 22-3010.01(a) (West 2022). The term “child” is defined as “a person who

has not yet attained the age of 16 years,” and a “minor” is “a person who has

not yet attained the age of 18 years.” D.C. Code Ann. § 22-3001(3), (5A)

(West 2022).

A conviction may qualify as a particularly serious crime based on “the

nature of the conviction, the type of sentence imposed, and the circumstances

and underlying facts of the conviction.” Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 336,

342 (BIA 2007), aff’d, 587 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 2009); see also

Gao v. Holder, 595 F.3d 549, 554–55 (4th Cir. 2010) (deferring to

Matter of N-A-M-). The Immigration Judge first examines whether “the

elements of the offense . . . potentially bring the crime into a category of

particularly serious crimes.” Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N Dec. at 342.

“[O]nce the elements of the offense are examined and found to potentially

bring the offense within the ambit of a particularly serious crime, all reliable

information may be considered in making a particularly serious crime

determination, including the conviction records and sentencing information,

Page

425

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 422 (BIA 2025)

Interim Decision #4160

as well as other information outside the confines of a record of conviction.”

Id. Where evidence indicates that the particularly serious crime bar may

apply, the respondent bears the burden to establish that he has not been

convicted of a particularly serious crime. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (2025).

The Immigration Judge concluded that the nature of the respondent’s

offense brought it within the ambit of a particularly serious crime. After

analyzing the facts of the respondent’s offense, the Immigration Judge

determined that the respondent had not satisfied his burden of demonstrating

that his conviction is not for a particularly serious crime. On appeal, the

respondent argues that the Immigration Judge erred in finding his offense is

a particularly serious crime without addressing Matter of Juarez. We review

de novo whether a conviction is for a particularly serious crime. See

Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 (BIA 2012); 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.1(d)(3)(ii).

In Matter of Juarez, the Board held that “[e]xcept possibly under unusual

circumstances not present here, we would not find a single conviction for a

misdemeanor offense to be a ‘particularly serious crime.’” 19 I&N Dec.

at 665. The respondent argues that Matter of Juarez creates a presumption

that misdemeanor offenses are not particularly serious crimes absent unusual

circumstances. But Matter of Juarez does not explicitly create such a

presumption. To the extent a presumption can be implied, we conclude that

such a presumption is inconsistent with current case law and the objective of

the particularly serious crime bar.

Matter of Juarez contains little analysis supporting its conclusion and

does not clearly address what “unusual circumstances” are or what

misdemeanor convictions would be excepted from the general statement that

misdemeanors do not normally constitute particularly serious crimes. Id.

Moreover, although Matter of Juarez does not state which party carries the

burden to establish that unusual circumstances exist, because the alien would

not generally argue that his or her misdemeanor offense is a particularly

serious crime, the decision appears to impermissibly shift the burden of proof

to DHS to prove unusual circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d).

The alleged presumption that a single misdemeanor conviction does not

generally constitute a particularly serious crime does not take into

consideration changes in what offenses States classify as misdemeanors.

Since Matter of Juarez was issued in 1988, several states have classified

dangerous crimes as misdemeanors and have also adopted the use of

“wobbler” provisions that allow for the reclassification of certain dangerous

offenses as either felonies or misdemeanors by prosecutors or State courts.

Page

426

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 422 (BIA 2025)

Interim Decision #4160

See, e.g., N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.20, 130.52, 130.55, 130.60

(McKinney 2025) (classifying sexual misconduct, forcible touching, and

sexual abuse in the second and third degrees as misdemeanors); Cal. Penal

Code § 261.5(d) (West 2025) (classifying unlawful sexual intercourse

between a person 21 years of age or older with a minor who is under 16 years

of age as either a misdemeanor or a felony); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann.

§ 18-6.5-103(6)(a), (9)(c)(ii) (West 2025) (explaining certain crimes against

elderly and disabled adults, such as false imprisonment and knowingly acting

in a manner likely to be injurious, are punishable as misdemeanors);

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-604(A) (2025) (permitting certain crimes in

Arizona to be recategorized and punished as Class 1 misdemeanors rather

than Class 6 felonies); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1203 (2025) (classifying

assault crimes as misdemeanors); Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.4.2 (West 2025)

(classifying sexual abuse of a child between the ages of 13 and 15 years as a

misdemeanor). A presumption that some of these dangerous crimes are not

particularly serious runs counter to the particularly serious crime bar’s

objective of protecting the public. See Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N Dec.

at 341.

The alleged presumption in Matter of Juarez is also inconsistent with the

Board’s decision in Matter of N-A-M-. 4 As discussed above, the particularly

serious crime framework set forth in Matter of N-A-M- requires that we look

at the nature of the conviction, the sentence imposed, and the circumstances

and underlying facts of the conviction. 24 I&N Dec. at 342. Under Matter of

N-A-M-, the sentence imposed is just one consideration, and thus whether the

State designates a crime as a misdemeanor or a felony is one element of the

analysis only, not the entirety of the analysis. Id. at 343 (noting that “the

sentence imposed is not a dominant factor in determining whether a

conviction is for a particularly serious crime”). The Matter of N-A-Mframework is the proper rubric for determining whether a crime is

particularly serious and there is no presumption that a single misdemeanor

conviction is not for a particularly serious crime. Because Matter of Juarez

provides no meaningful guidance regarding how, under current law, to

analyze misdemeanor convictions for the purpose of determining whether the

particularly serious crime bar applies, it does not provide a useful rubric.

Thus, we now overrule Matter of Juarez.

4

Notably, in Matter of N-A-M-, we found that a conviction for violating a statute similar

to that found not to be for a particularly serious crime in Matter of Juarez was for a

particularly serious crime. Compare Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N Dec. at 343 (finding felony

menacing with a deadly weapon to be a particularly serious crime), with Matter of Juarez,

19 I&N Dec. at 664–65 (finding misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon was not a

particularly serious crime).

Page

427

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 422 (BIA 2025)

Interim Decision #4160

We affirm the Immigration Judge’s determination that the respondent’s

conviction constitutes a particularly serious crime under the current

analytical scheme. The respondent was convicted of three counts of sexual

abuse of a minor. Although his offense was labeled a misdemeanor, child

sex crimes are particularly egregious. The respondent’s statute of conviction

includes sexually suggestive conduct perpetrated upon a child under the age

of 16. D.C. Code Ann. §§ 22-3001(3), 22-3010.01(a). Such conduct is

highly abusive. Cf. Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 581 U.S. 385, 390–91

(2017) (concluding that the generic definition of sexual abuse of a minor

requires that the victim be younger than 16). We are thus persuaded that the

elements of misdemeanor sexual abuse of a minor or child fall within the

ambit of a particularly serious crime, placing the burden on the respondent

to establish that his conviction is not for a particularly serious crime. As

discussed above, the Immigration Judge found that the respondent pressured

a 15-year-old victim to engage in sexual activity, provided her with

marijuana, and caused the victim to contract a sexually transmitted infection.

Thus, despite the respondent’s conviction being for a misdemeanor, we agree

with the Immigration Judge that based on the facts and circumstances

underlying the respondent’s conviction, the respondent has failed to establish

that his offense is not particularly serious. Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N Dec.

at 342-43; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d). Based on the foregoing, we affirm the

Immigration Judge’s conclusion that the respondent is barred from

asylum and withholding of removal. See INA §§ 208(b)(2)(A)(ii),

241(b)(3)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(2)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(d)(2)(i).

III. CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE

Turning to the respondent’s request for deferral of removal under the

CAT, the Immigration Judge’s denial is also affirmed. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.17(a) (2025). The respondent does not contest the Immigration

Judge’s determination that he does not face a sufficient, individualized risk

of torture from the gang members who attempted to recruit and extort him in

the past or from his father. As such, the respondent has waived any

challenges to these findings. See Matter of P-B-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 43, 44 n.1

(BIA 2020).

As to his remaining theory of torture, the respondent claimed that he will

be detained upon arrival in Honduras due to his tattoos, criminal history, and

deportee status and tortured while in detention. The respondent first argues

that the Immigration Judge applied a legally erroneous standard by requiring

him to show that every Honduran male with tattoos would be subjected to

detention. See Ibarra Chevez v. Garland, 31 F.4th 279, 290 (4th Cir. 2022)

Page

428

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 422 (BIA 2025)

Interim Decision #4160

(explaining that the “more likely than not” analysis does not “require any

specific statistical or quantitative analysis”). We are not persuaded that

remand is warranted, however, on this basis. Even assuming, without

deciding, that the respondent would be detained upon his arrival based on his

criminal history and tattoos, we agree with the Immigration Judge that the

record does not support his claim that he will more likely than not be tortured.

On appeal, the respondent cites to country conditions evidence

documenting instances of abuse in custody, some of which may constitute

torture.

However, absent information regarding the frequency or

pervasiveness of the use of torture, the Immigration Judge did not clearly err

in finding that the country conditions evidence coupled with the factual

circumstances of the respondent’s claim did not sufficiently establish that it

is more likely than not that he personally would suffer harm constituting

torture upon return to Honduras. See Matter of A-A-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 38, 42

(BIA 2025) (emphasizing that an alien “must do more than show that some

individuals in detention suffer harm rising to the level of torture” to prevail

on a CAT claim); see also Matter of A-A-F-V-, 29 I&N Dec. 118, 119

(BIA 2025) (holding that the question of what will happen to an alien is a

factual finding, whereas whether such harm amounts to torture is a legal

determination). Thus, although the respondent argues that his tattoos,

criminal history, and deportee status would lead to his arrest, the record does

not reflect that he will more likely than not be tortured if detained. As such,

the respondent has not carried his burden to establish his eligibility for

protection under the CAT. We will therefore dismiss the respondent’s

appeal.

ORDER: The respondent’s appeal is dismissed.

NOTICE: If a respondent is subject to a final order of removal and

willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States pursuant to the

order, to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents

necessary to depart the United States, or to present himself or herself at the

time and place required for removal by DHS, or conspires to or takes any

action designed to prevent or hamper the respondent’s departure pursuant to

the order of removal, the respondent shall be subject to a civil monetary

penalty of up to $998 for each day the respondent is in violation. See INA

§ 274D, 8 U.S.C. § 1324d (2024); 8 C.F.R. § 280.53(b)(14) (2025). Further,

any respondent that has been denied admission to, removed from, or has

departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or

removal is outstanding and thereafter enters, attempts to enter, or is at any

time found in the United States shall be fined or imprisoned not more than

2 years, or both. See INA § 276(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2024).

Page

429

CONCURRING OPINION: Hugh G. Mullane, Appellate Immigration Judge

I agree with the result reached by the majority in this case. I would not,

however, overturn Matter of Juarez, 19 I&N Dec. 664 (BIA 1988). The

majority’s efforts here are a solution in search of a problem.

Matter of Juarez, 19 I&N Dec. at 665, merely says a “single conviction”

for a misdemeanor will not—except in unusual circumstances—constitute a

particularly serious crime that renders an applicant not eligible for asylum or

withholding of removal. To overturn a precedent, we should reference the

important reason for doing so. For example, the precedent is producing

unintended results or Immigration Judges are struggling to sensibly apply it.

But the majority does not invoke those reasons as they are clearly

inapplicable. The Immigration Judge, in this case, had no trouble concluding

that respondent’s offense was a particularly serious crime. The majority

likewise does not suggest that if the Immigration Judge had applied Matter of

Juarez, he would have been bound to hold the particularly serious crime bar

inapplicable. Moreover, there is no other evidence of Immigration Judges

misapplying Matter of Juarez and affording asylum or withholding of

removal to applicants convicted of a particularly serious crime merely

because the crime is labeled as a misdemeanor.

The best reason the majority can come up with for overturning Matter of

Juarez is that the “unusual circumstance” caveat is not a “useful rubric.” But

some guidance—even general guidance—is often better than none at all

(particularly when the legal issue is narrow). In any event, the primary

guidance for resolving the particularly serious crime question is a decision

that post-dates Matter of Juarez—namely, Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N

Dec. 336 (BIA 2007), aff’d, 587 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 2009). Notably, we

left Matter of Juarez intact there, when we concluded that a particularly

serious crime “need not be an aggravated felony.” Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N

Dec. at 337. Without stronger reasons, I see no need to set aside Matter of

Juarez as I suspect that most misdemeanor offenses would not constitute a

particularly serious crime.

Page

430