Matter of D-G-B-L-, 29 I&N Dec. 392 (BIA 2026): New Clarification on the Serious Nonpolitical Crime Bar and Duress

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) recently issued an important precedent decision, Matter of D-G-B-L-, 29 I&N Dec. 392 (BIA 2026), holding that the serious nonpolitical crime bar to asylum and withholding of removal does not include a duress exception. This is a critical update for many individuals seeking protection in the United States who have challenging backgrounds that include criminal conduct committed under extraordinary circumstances. (Department of Justice)

In this blog, I’ll explain:

• What the serious nonpolitical crime bar is;
• What the BIA clarified in Matter of D-G-B-L-;
• Why duress still cannot be used as a defense to avoid the bar; and
• What this means for asylum seekers and others in removal proceedings.

What Is the “Serious Nonpolitical Crime Bar”?

Under U.S. immigration law — specifically Section 208(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — a person is ineligible for asylum if there are “serious reasons for believing that the alien has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to arrival.” The same bar also applies to withholding of removal and related forms of protection. (Department of Justice)

The standard phrase “serious reasons for believing” is interpreted as probable cause — a relatively low threshold based on reliable evidence that a qualifying crime occurred. (Department of Justice)

In practice, this means that if DHS or the immigration judge develops evidence demonstrating probable cause that you committed a qualifying serious nonpolitical crime (e.g., drug trafficking, robbery, assault), USCIS or the immigration court presumes the bar applies — and the burden shifts to you to show why it should not apply.

What Did  Decide?

In Matter of D-G-B-L-, the BIA addressed a specific question: Can a person avoid the serious nonpolitical crime bar by showing that the crime was committed under duress (e.g., forced by someone else)?

The BIA held that the immigration statute does not include a duress exception. Because the law is plain on its face and does not include voluntariness or duress as elements of the bar, the Board explained that it has no authority to add a duress exception where Congress chose not to include one. The BIA relied on well-established principles of statutory interpretation — including Supreme Court precedent cautioning against inserting exceptions not present in the statute’s text — to reach this conclusion. (Department of Justice)

In other words:
✔ Even if the criminal conduct was committed because you were forced to do it under threat, duress does not eliminate the serious nonpolitical crime bar; and
✔ The statutory language is clear that the crime must simply be serious, nonpolitical, committed outside the United States, and before arrival — regardless of whether you acted under pressure. (Department of Justice)

The BIA also referred to earlier case law confirming that courts and immigration authorities cannot read additional exceptions into a statute that Congress omitted. (Department of Justice)

Why Does This Matter?

This decision is especially significant for asylum seekers and others who may have been coerced into criminal conduct as victims of trafficking, domestic abuse, or gang coercion before coming to the United States.

Under prior practice, some argued that duress should be recognized as a defense — meaning that someone forced to commit a crime should not be barred from asylum simply because the conduct on its face fits the serious nonpolitical crime bar. Matter of D-G-B-L- now makes clear that duress cannot be used to avoid the bar itself under the asylum statute. (AILA)

This does not mean that the circumstances are irrelevant in all contexts — but they do not negate the bar. It may still be possible to use the facts of duress in other parts of your case, such as to show that you meet the refugee definition or to argue for discretionary favorable factors, but the statutory bar stands unless otherwise addressed by specific law or waivers.

What Are the Practical Effects on Your Case?

If you are an asylum applicant or seeking withholding of removal:

• USCIS or the immigration judge may identify evidence of a serious nonpolitical crime from your past.
• Once probable cause exists, the burden shifts to you to show that the bar does not apply — but you cannot argue duress as an exception to the statutory bar itself under this precedent. (Department of Justice)

Instead, advocacy in these cases often focuses on:

✔ Arguing That the Act Does Not Apply

For example:

• Showing that the crime was not serious as defined by law;
• Demonstrating that the conduct was political in nature (if applicable); or
• Establishing that the offense occurred after arrival in the United States.

✔ Seeking Other Forms of Relief

Other protections (e.g., CAT protection, special waivers) may remain available even if the serious crime bar applies, depending on the individual circumstances of the case.

✔ Strategic Use of Duress in the Overall Narrative

While duress cannot remove the bar itself, it may still contribute to:

• A compelling story for why protection is warranted;
• Evidence of persecution, coercion, or vulnerability; and
• Arguments on discretionary relief or alternative forms of protection.

An experienced immigration lawyer can help craft a strategy that frames the evidence effectively even in light of this new precedent.

Conclusion: Matter of D-G-B-L- Clarifies Limits on Duress Claims

Matter of D-G-B-L-, 29 I&N Dec. 392 (BIA 2026) makes clear that:

• The serious nonpolitical crime bar to asylum and withholding of removal has no duress exception, and
• Immigration authorities cannot insert exceptions into statutory text that Congress chose not to include. (Department of Justice)

If your asylum case involves complicated facts — especially involving crime, coercion, or duress before your arrival in the United States — you need a legal strategy that addresses both the statutory bar and alternative arguments and relief pathways.

Whether you’re at the initial application stage or facing removal proceedings, it’s critical to understand how this decision affects your options and to prepare a tailored legal approach that maximizes your chance of success.

Alena Shautsova
New York Immigration Lawyer
Asylum ● Withholding of Removal ● Immigration Appeals
📞 917-885-2261
🌐 www.shautsova.com