Fourth Circuit Lowers the Burden of Proof for Green Card Applicants in Removal Proceedings

Quick Takeaways: Santana v. Blanche (4th Cir. 2026)

• The Core Ruling: Previously inspected and admitted noncitizens seeking adjustment of status (a green card) in removal proceedings only need to show it is more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence) that they are admissible.
• What Changed: For decades, immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) treated adjustment applicants like individuals arriving at the border, forcing them to meet the near-impossible “clearly and beyond doubt” standard.
• The Legal Catalyst: Because the Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference in Loper Bright, the Fourth Circuit no longer had to defer to the BIA’s harsh interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and instead applied the plain text of the statute.

Background of the Case

How the Fourth Circuit Reached Its Decision

1. Adjustment Applicants Are Not “Applicants for Admission”: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1), an “applicant for admission” applies only to individuals arriving at the border or present in the U.S. without having been admitted. Because Santana was previously inspected and admitted on a visa, she did not fall into either category.
2. Standard Relief Rules Apply: Under federal regulations (8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d)), noncitizens applying for relief from removal—including adjustment of status—bear the burden of proving eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence (meaning greater than a 50% likelihood).
3. Prior Language Was Non-Binding Dicta: The court clarified that passing references to the “clearly and beyond doubt” standard in its 2014 Dakura v. Holder decision were non-binding dicta because the applicant in that case never disputed making a false citizenship claim.

Why This Decision Is Important

• Levels the Playing Field in Immigration Court: Under the old “clearly and beyond doubt” standard, any ambiguity in the record—such as missing documents, faded memories from decades ago, or clerical errors by an employer—automatically resulted in a green card denial and deportation order. Moving to the preponderance of the evidence standard means applicants with credible, corroborated explanations can prevail even when the evidence is not 100% airtight.
• Protects Applicants Accused of Form I-9 Mistakes: False claims to U.S. citizenship carry a permanent, unwaivable bar to inadmissibility. As Santana demonstrates, third parties or HR personnel sometimes fill out portions of onboarding paperwork inaccurately. Lowering the burden of proof gives noncitizens a fair opportunity to prove they did not knowingly make a false claim.
• Demonstrates the Post-Chevron Shift in Immigration Law: This decision is a prime example of how Loper Bright empowers federal courts to reject overly restrictive BIA interpretations. For years, the BIA stretched statutory definitions to impose harsher burdens on immigrants. Now, courts are strictly holding agencies to the actual text written by Congress.
• Broad Impact Across the Fourth Circuit (and Persuasive Nationwide): While binding within the Fourth Circuit (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia), the court’s thorough statutory analysis provides a powerful blueprint for attorneys challenging the BIA’s “clearly and beyond doubt” standard in other federal circuits across the country.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Need Help With a Complex Green Card or Removal Case?