BIA Appeal: Address the Internal-Relocation Finding With the Actual Record

If an immigration judge denies protection partly because you could relocate within your country, your BIA appeal needs to address that finding directly. An argument about past harm, motive or government protection may leave the relocation ground unanswered. Start by comparing the judge’s actual reasoning with the record and the issues your appeal presents.

In the October 21, 2026 Palomo memorandum, the Ninth Circuit treated an internal-relocation issue omitted from the BIA appeal as dispositive of withholding review. It therefore did not reach the applicant’s remaining withholding arguments. The useful preparation step is specific: Identify the relocation finding, the evidence bearing on it and the error you ask the Board to correct.

The memorandum is nonprecedential except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. It describes exhaustion as a mandatory claim-processing rule when the government raises it, rather than a jurisdictional bar. Its practical warning is to preserve the issue before the Board instead of assuming it can first be argued in court. Memorandum, page 2.

Mark the relocation finding in the immigration judge’s decision

Obtain the complete decision, whether written or delivered orally. Identify where the judge addressed relocation and what conclusion supported the denial. Did the decision identify a particular place, rely on a prior period living elsewhere, describe a persecutor’s reach or discuss whether moving would be reasonable? Record the actual finding rather than substituting a general statement that the country is dangerous.

A denial may rest on several grounds. List them separately and note which form of protection each ground concerns. This prevents a strong discussion of one issue from obscuring another ground that could independently sustain the result.

The BIA’s appeal-brief guidance calls for clear issues, an applicable standard of review, record-supported facts and a precise requested remedy. Section 3.6(c)(6) emphasizes identifying disputed facts; section 3.6(d)(8) explains references to the immigration judge’s decision.

Connect the challenged finding to evidence already in the record

For each disputed point, identify the hearing testimony or admitted exhibit that bears on it. If the judge relied on a prior move, explain what the record shows about where you lived, how long you stayed, why you left and whether the relevant person or group found you there. If the decision relied on family members remaining safely elsewhere, identify what the record establishes about their circumstances and how they compare with yours.

Keep safety and reasonableness distinct when those issues are relevant to the decision. Evidence about whether a persecutor could reach a place addresses a different question from evidence about living there in the applicant’s actual circumstances. Our relocation-evidence guide discusses those factual subjects. The appeal task is to show how the admitted evidence supports a claimed error in this decision.

Do not omit an unfavorable fact simply because it complicates the argument. The Board’s manual expressly warns against misrepresenting the record or omitting relevant unfavorable facts. An accurate explanation of a difficult fact is more useful than an assertion the record contradicts.

State the error rather than repeating the protection request

An appeal brief should make clear why the relocation finding should be changed or reconsidered under the applicable law and standard of review. That might involve a disputed factual finding, the legal framework applied or the treatment of particular evidence. Counsel must identify which kind of question is actually presented.

“I still fear return” describes the applicant’s position, but it does not explain the error in a finding about another part of the country. A more focused presentation identifies the finding, the record material and why they do not fit together under the governing rule. The appropriate burden and standard depend on the protection claim and facts; they should not be assumed from an unrelated case summary.

Section 3.6(c)(10) of the manual discourages relying on cross-references to arguments made elsewhere. Prepare the appeal’s argument in full rather than assuming that the Board will reconstruct it from earlier filings.

Separate a record argument from new evidence

The Board’s evidence-on-appeal guidance states that it considers evidence admitted below and does not consider new evidence on appeal in the ordinary way. A new submission may be treated as a motion to remand. Counsel’s statements in a brief are not themselves evidence.

If a new threat, medical development or country report has arisen, preserve it and tell counsel when it became available. Do not insert it into the factual narrative as though it had been admitted at the hearing. Whether and how to seek consideration of new material is a separate procedural question.

The Board may take administrative notice of certain commonly known facts and official documents, but that discretionary authority is not a reason to leave the existing record unexplained. Identify what is already in the record and what would require a different request.

Review withholding and CAT as separate grounds

In the Palomo analysis, the court dealt with the relocation omission in its withholding discussion, then separately reviewed the CAT evidence. A brief should similarly identify the actual reasons for denial of each requested protection rather than assume one argument necessarily answers both.

For a CAT claim involving threats to relatives, distinguish what the record shows about those events from what supports the applicant’s own asserted risk. Identify the actors, motive evidence and connection to the applicant where the record supplies them; do not fill gaps with speculation.

Bring the decision, appeal papers and record citations

For review, bring the complete immigration judge’s decision, notice of appeal, briefing notice, any filed brief and the relevant testimony and exhibits. Identify the deadline shown on the notice and whether a brief has already been submitted. If the BIA has decided the appeal, include that decision as well.

Mishra X Trial Lawyers can compare the relocation finding with the issues and evidence presented. The earlier the actual papers are available, the more precisely counsel can assess the remaining procedural options. A consultation request does not extend the filing deadline.