The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)The administrative body within the Department of Justice that hears appeals from immigration judges and certain USCIS decisions.See it in the glossary has overturned a 26-year-old precedent and held that a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony can be inadmissible as a person who is “ineligible to citizenship” under section 212(a)(8)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The ruling
In Matter of A-V-O-, 30 I&N Dec. 44 (BIA 2026), decided September 17, the Board expressly overruled Matter of Kanga, a 2000 precedent that had limited the phrase “ineligible to citizenship” largely to people barred from citizenship because of military-service evasion.
Why the Board changed course
The Board concluded that the statutory definition is broader. It reasoned that a person permanently barred from naturalization under any provision of the immigration laws can fall within the definition of “ineligible to citizenship.” Because an aggravated felony conviction can permanently prevent a person from establishing the Good moral characterA requirement for naturalization. Applicants must show good moral character during the statutory period, generally the five years before filing (three for certain spouses of U.S. citizens), and continuing until the oath. USCIS decides each case individually, and the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence.See it in the glossary required for NaturalizationThe process by which a permanent resident becomes a U.S. citizen, generally after three or five years of residence, by filing Form N-400.See it in the glossary, the Board held that such a conviction can also trigger InadmissibilityA finding that a person is not eligible for a visa, admission or a green card under the grounds listed in INA 212(a). The grounds cover health, crimes, security, public charge, misrepresentation, unlawful presence, prior removal and others. Some grounds can be waived.See it in the glossary under section 212(a)(8)(A).
Effect on future cases
The decision could affect eligibility for admission and, in some cases, adjustment of status because a finding of inadmissibility can prevent approval unless another form of relief or waiver is available. The Board described its ruling as a significant change from the prior understanding of whether aggravated felons could remain admissible for adjustment purposes.
Importantly, the Board limited the new rule to future cases. It held that the decision applies only to people seeking admission as immigrants who incur an aggravated felony conviction based on a guilty or nolo contendere plea entered, or a jury verdict returned, after September 17, 2026. The Board said applying the change retroactively would disrupt reliance on the former rule and could affect cases in which waivers and Adjustment of statusThe process of applying for a green card from within the United States, rather than through a consulate abroad. Filed on Form I-485.See it in the glossary had already been granted.
Case background
The respondent in Matter of A-V-O- had been found removable based on federal convictions involving fraud and aggravated identity theft. The Board affirmed the Immigration judgeAn attorney appointed by the Attorney General who presides over removal proceedings in immigration court, part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review.See it in the glossary’s findings that the convictions qualified as aggravated felonies and also upheld the denial of the respondent’s waiver, adjustment of status and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
The ruling is a precedential BIA decision and is therefore binding on immigration judges and DHS immigration officers nationwide unless it is modified by the Attorney General, a federal court with controlling authority, or a later precedential decision.