The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of A.M., a bisexual man from Russia, granting his petition for review of an asylum claim. The court found that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had misunderstood A.M.'s social group based on his sexual orientation and failed to provide him with a meaningful opportunity to present corroborating evidence. This ruling is significant as it highlights the ongoing challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals seeking asylum in the United States due to persecution in their home countries.
A.M. fled Russia after experiencing severe discrimination and violence due to his bisexuality. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) but faced denial from an Immigration Judge (IJ). The IJ's decision was based on a misunderstanding of bisexuality and a lack of notice regarding the need for additional evidence, which led to the Ninth Circuit's intervention.
Background
A.M. is a native of Russia who first recognized his attraction to men at the age of eleven. After coming out to his mother, he faced violent backlash from her partner and bullying from classmates. His experiences included physical assaults, workplace discrimination, and threats from former acquaintances after he left Russia. The IJ initially denied A.M.'s asylum application, stating that he had not sufficiently demonstrated his bisexuality or the persecution he faced as a result.
The case reached the Ninth Circuit after A.M. appealed the IJ's decision to the BIA, which upheld the denial. The BIA concluded that A.M.'s evidence was insufficient to prove he was bisexual or that he had been targeted for harm in Russia. A.M. argued that the IJ had misapplied the law regarding his sexual orientation and failed to provide him with adequate notice of the evidence needed to support his claim.
The Ruling
The Ninth Circuit, in a ruling filed on October 23, 2026, granted A.M.'s petition for review and remanded the case back to the BIA. The court found that the IJ had fundamentally misunderstood A.M.'s proposed social group based on his bisexuality. The opinion stated, "A person’s sexual orientation is not solely defined by their sexual relations," emphasizing that the IJ's reasoning was arbitrary and incorrect.
The court also noted that the IJ violated the notice-and-opportunity requirement outlined in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) by failing to inform A.M. of the need for additional corroborating evidence before denying his claim. The IJ's decision to identify missing evidence only in her final ruling meant A.M. had no chance to provide that evidence or explain why it was unavailable.
Impact
This ruling is crucial for individuals seeking asylum based on their sexual orientation, particularly in cases involving LGBTQ+ individuals from countries where they face systemic discrimination and violence. The court's decision reinforces the importance of accurately understanding sexual orientation in legal contexts and ensuring that applicants are given fair opportunities to present their cases.
The ruling sets a precedent for future cases where misunderstandings of sexual orientation could lead to unjust asylum denials. It emphasizes the need for immigration judges to provide clear guidance on what evidence is required and to allow applicants the opportunity to gather that evidence.
What's Next
The case has been remanded to the BIA, where A.M. will have the opportunity to present additional evidence supporting his asylum claim. It is unclear if the government will appeal this ruling or if there are related cases pending that could affect the outcome of A.M.'s situation.