⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears argument in Safarov versus Blanche. The petitioners are members of the Meskhetian Turk minority who sought asylum in the United States based on conditions in Russia. An immigration judge, called the I J throughout the argument, denied their asylum claim, finding that while the Meskhetian Turk community in Russia is a disfavored group, it is not systematically persecuted, and that the record showed only a minor risk that these petitioners would be persecuted because of their membership in that group. Petitioners later filed a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. They argued that a March twenty twenty-four terrorist attack at the Crocus City Hall concert venue just outside Moscow had drastically worsened Islamophobia in Russia, and they contended that minority conscripts, including Meskhetian Turks, were now being treated as expendable cannon fodder in Russia's war with Ukraine, sent on suicide missions and dying at disproportionately high rates. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion to reopen, concluding that the evidence showed a continuity of discriminatory conduct that predated the original hearing in twenty twenty-three. The core legal issue before this panel is whether the Board abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, or whether it adequately explained its decision under the governing standard for changed country conditions.

Safarov v. Blanche (No. 25-3147) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 7, 2026.