Translation: Biden’s reg tried to end DHS’s absolute veto. Today’s decision maps a detour, ignoring the very rule it’s bound to follow. Expect fresh court fights over administrative closure. Which circuit will clip the Board’s wings first? Stay tuned.

That line effectively elevates DHS objections despite the 2024 regulation that codified a balanced six-factor test and said no single factor controls. The Bondi Board is steering around the reg and leaning on W-Y-U- again.

Avetisyan (2012) let IJs & the BIA close cases even when DHS flat-out refused to consent—killing the old DHS veto. B-N-K- revives that leverage, saying “whether there are persuasive reasons for a case to proceed and be resolved on the merits is the primary consideration.”

With record EOIR backlogs (2.7M pending cases) and one-judge BIA rulings, courts must exercise meaningful review. Otherwise, immigration law becomes whatever the agency says it is—not what Congress intended.

Substantial evidence is objective, but it’s deeply deferential—and in practice, shields agency error. The standard of review often decides the case.

I’m all for hooking the reader in as much as anyone, but here’s 4 of the last 6 Judge Richardson opinions…too much?

…with the dissenting judge making it clear that style should not overshadow substance. The case itself turned on a procedural timing issue, but the opinion also sparks debate about judicial writing—should opinions prioritize clarity over color?