When the BIA Drops the Hammer: McDonald and Cotrufo

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has dropped two precedents in 2025 that pack a serious punch: Matter of McDonald, 29 I&N Dec. 249, and Matter of Cotrufo, 29 I&N Dec. 264. Together, they show where the winds are blowing: harsher detention decisions, narrower room for discretionary relief, and a willingness to let ugly facts outweigh sympathetic equities.

Both decisions were designated as precedents by the Attorney General in September 2025, making them binding nationwide and signaling a zero-tolerance approach toward cases involving crimes against children.

Matter of McDonald  (LPR from Canada)

Samuel McDonald was a lawful permanent resident from Canada, admitted back in 1991. After three decades in the United States, he found himself in removal proceedings and applied for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a).

The charges: Convictions for endangering the welfare of a child under New York law. On paper, these are misdemeanors: the kind of charges that might not seem like removal triggers to the untrained eye.

The allegations: The record told a much darker story. Victim statements and charging documents described supplying drugs to a 14-year-old, traveling with her across state lines, buying sex toys, and trying to orchestrate sexual encounters between the minor and others.

The IJ's call: Initially granted cancellation, emphasizing McDonald's family ties, long residence in the United States, and potential hardship from removal.

The BIA's reversal: Not so fast. The Board held that Immigration Judges can't just ignore non-conviction misconduct if the evidence is probative and reliable. The "allegations only" were enough to tip the discretionary scale against McDonald. Cancellation was revoked; removal to Canada was ordered.

The official BIA decision in Matter of McDonald makes clear that Immigration Judges must consider the totality of conduct, not just the narrow elements of conviction.

Matter of Cotrufo  (Respondent from Italy)

Alessandro Cotrufo, an Italian national, was convicted in California of unlawful sex and oral copulation with a 14-year-old victim.

Age matters: Cotrufo was 18 at the time of the conduct. In many jurisdictions, this might not even have been a crime at all, or would fall under "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions meant to avoid branding close-in-age relationships as serious sex offenses.

The IJ's call: Released him on bond with conditions, leaning heavily on risk assessment tools that labeled him "low risk" for recidivism and flight.

The BIA's reversal: Vacated the bond order entirely, detaining Cotrufo without bond. Why? The probation report painted him as manipulative, lacking genuine remorse, and having targeted a vulnerable victim who was significantly younger and in a position of dependency. And unlike in criminal court, immigration judges aren't handcuffed by hearsay rules: narrative reports from probation officers carry substantial weight.

The official BIA decision in Matter of Cotrufo established that recent convictions for unlawful sexual conduct with minors create a presumption of community danger that is extremely difficult to overcome.

The Common Thread: Discretion Shrinks, Allegations Expand

Both cases reinforce the same fundamental message for immigration practitioners and their clients:

Immigration judges can and must consider ugly facts outside the four corners of a conviction. Allegations in charging documents, probation reports, victim impact statements, police reports: they're all fair game in immigration proceedings. The rules of evidence are more relaxed than in criminal court, and narrative descriptions of conduct carry real weight.

Positive equities aren't enough. Long lawful residence, family hardship, community ties, or years of clean living since conviction won't automatically outweigh evidence of serious or exploitative conduct involving children. The BIA is sending a clear signal that crimes against minors create an almost insurmountable barrier to relief.

The burden is squarely on the respondent. Whether seeking bond or cancellation of removal, it's not enough to poke holes in DHS's case or argue that the government hasn't proven dangerousness. Respondents must affirmatively demonstrate they are safe to release or worthy of discretionary relief, and that burden is now much heavier.

The Politics Underneath

These decisions reveal something important about current enforcement priorities. Some critics regularly hammer ICE and DHS for alleged racial bias, arguing that enforcement disproportionately targets Black and Latino immigrants. But these two cases serve as a stark reminder that the agency is perfectly willing to pursue the maximum penalty against white men from Canada and Italy who entered the United States lawfully.

McDonald had held a green card for three decades. Cotrufo came to the United States with proper documentation. Their race, national origin, and lawful entry status provided zero protection when the underlying facts involved drugs, sex, and minors. When children are the victims, ICE pushes for maximum consequences, and the BIA is backing them up with precedential force.

Practical Impact for Practitioners

These precedents will reshape immigration defense strategies nationwide:

In bond hearings, expect Immigration Judges to deny bond more frequently in cases involving any sexual or child endangerment charges, regardless of risk assessment scores or lack of prior violations. The burden to prove non-dangerousness is now essentially impossible to meet with recent child-related convictions.

In cancellation cases, Practitioners must prepare for much more detailed scrutiny of underlying conduct, not just conviction elements. Charging documents, plea colloquies, probation reports, and victim statements will all be fair game for the Immigration Judge's discretionary analysis.

In plea negotiations, Criminal defense attorneys working with non-citizen clients need to understand that immigration consequences now extend far beyond the formal conviction. The factual basis for any plea involving children will follow clients into immigration proceedings with unprecedented force.

Why This Matters Going Forward

These cases aren't isolated decisions: they're binding precedents that will be cited in bond hearings and cancellation cases nationwide for years to come. Every Immigration Judge in the country now has clear guidance from the BIA about how to handle cases involving crimes against children.

Expect to see:

• More Immigration Judges are refusing bond in serious criminal cases, even with favorable risk assessment scores

• Greater reliance on probation reports, victim narratives, and charging documents in discretionary determinations

• Reduced success rates for cancellation applications involving any child-related misconduct

• Increased detention times for respondents with these types of convictions

For immigration practitioners, the message is clear: traditional arguments about rehabilitation, family hardship, and community ties carry much less weight when children are involved. The discretionary landscape has fundamentally shifted toward an enforcement-first approach that prioritizes community safety over individual circumstances.

For respondents and their families, these decisions represent a harsh new reality where past mistakes involving minors, even as teenagers, even decades ago, can permanently bar immigration relief and lead to indefinite detention.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and constantly evolving. If you or someone you know is facing immigration proceedings, especially involving criminal convictions, consult with a qualified immigration attorney who can evaluate the specific facts of your case and provide personalized legal guidance.