The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has ruled against Albert D. Mills, ordering his removal from the United States back to Canada due to his extensive criminal history. The decision, issued on April 28, 2026, overturned a previous ruling that had granted Mills cancellation of removal. This ruling impacts Mills, a long-term lawful permanent resident, and highlights the challenges faced by individuals with criminal records seeking to remain in the U.S.
The case began when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed a decision made by an Immigration Judge on July 9, 2025, who had granted Mills's application for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The BIA found that the Immigration Judge had erred in granting this application, stating that Mills's criminal history outweighed the positive factors in his favor.
Mills, a 60-year-old native of Canada, has lived in the United States for over 30 years. He has close family ties, including a son, daughter-in-law, and grandchild residing in the U.S. Additionally, he has maintained steady employment and consistently filed his tax returns. However, the BIA noted that Mills has a significant criminal record, which includes multiple convictions for offenses such as burglary, driving while ability impaired, and harassment.
The BIA's ruling was based on a detailed review of Mills's criminal history, which includes two convictions for criminal possession of stolen property and burglary in 2000, a conviction for endangering the welfare of a child in 2004, and a conviction for driving while ability impaired in 2007. The court emphasized that the 2007 conviction was particularly serious, as it involved an accident that caused physical damage. The BIA cited previous case law, stating that "drunk driving is an extremely serious crime" and that crimes against persons are considered particularly grave in immigration law.
In its decision, the BIA acknowledged Mills's positive factors, such as his long-term residence, family ties, and employment history. However, it concluded that these factors did not outweigh the negative aspects of his extensive criminal record. The court stated, "We conclude that the respondent’s undesirability as a permanent resident outweighs the favorable factors and social and humane considerations presented on his behalf such that a grant of cancellation of removal is not in the best interest of the United States." This ruling was made by a panel of Appellate Immigration Judges, including Judges Hunsucker, Gemoets, and Chaban.
The impact of this ruling is significant for individuals in similar situations. It reinforces the idea that a criminal history can heavily influence immigration decisions, even for those who have established lives in the U.S. The BIA's decision serves as a reminder that the balance between positive factors and negative criminal history is crucial in determining whether an individual is allowed to remain in the country.
Moving forward, this ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving cancellation of removal applications. Individuals with criminal records seeking to remain in the U.S. may face increased scrutiny, as the BIA has made it clear that extensive criminal histories can lead to removal despite other mitigating factors. The decision could also impact how Immigration Judges assess cases involving similar circumstances.
As for Mills, he has the option to appeal the BIA's decision. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence other individuals facing removal proceedings, especially those with criminal backgrounds.