In a ruling that could reshape how federal agencies handle immigration cases involving national security bars, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has partially granted a petition for review for Mohamed Irshan Mohamed Sufiyan, a Sri Lankan native seeking asylum.
The court’s decision, issued on March 12, 2026, addresses a procedural “catch-22” that left Sufiyan unable to seek a waiver for activities the government deemed “material support” for a terrorist organization.
The Background of the Case
The case of Sufiyan v. Bondi stems from events in 2009. Sufiyan testified that he was kidnapped by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a designated foreign terrorist organization, while driving in Sri Lanka. According to court records, the LTTE shot Sufiyan’s boss and held Sufiyan captive, forcing him at gunpoint to translate interrogations between Tamil and Sinhala.
Following his escape, Sufiyan was detained and allegedly beaten by the Sri Lankan army, who suspected him of being an LTTE member. He eventually made his way to the United States in 2014 to seek protection.
READ: Court Sides With Bondi, Rejects Missouri Man’s Bid To Halt Deportation Over Family Hardship
The Legal Deadlock
An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) previously denied Sufiyan’s asylum application. They cited the “material support bar,” a federal law that makes anyone who provides assistance to a terrorist group—even under duress—ineligible for asylum.
Because the BIA found the support bar was “dispositive,” it declined to rule on whether Sufiyan would actually qualify for asylum based on his fear of persecution. This created a significant legal hurdle: under current Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rules, an applicant cannot apply for a discretionary waiver of the material support bar unless they have first been found “otherwise eligible” for asylum.
By refusing to rule on his eligibility, the BIA effectively blocked Sufiyan from even asking for a waiver.
The Second Circuit’s Ruling
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Robinson argued that the BIA’s refusal to determine “but-for” eligibility frustrated the intent of Congress.
“The BIA’s approach here renders the statutory exemption process a mirage,” the court stated. “Without that determination, Sufiyan could not apply for a waiver of the material support bar from the relevant authorities within the Department of Homeland Security.”
The court granted the petition in part and remanded the case back to the BIA. The agency must now decide if Sufiyan would be entitled to asylum if the material support bar were not a factor.
However, the court denied Sufiyan’s challenge regarding the Convention Against Torture (CAT), upholding the lower court’s finding that he had not proven it was “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if returned to Sri Lanka.
A Split Decision
The ruling was not unanimous. Circuit Judge Sullivan concurred in part but dissented regarding the new requirement for the BIA. Sullivan argued that agencies should not be forced to make findings on issues they deem unnecessary to the final result.
“I cannot agree that the Board of Immigration Appeals was required to determine whether Sufiyan was eligible for relief from removal but for the material support bar,” Sullivan wrote, suggesting the majority was imposing a “judge-made rule of procedure.”
Next Steps
The BIA must now re-examine Sufiyan’s case to provide a definitive ruling on his asylum eligibility. If the BIA finds he meets the criteria for a refugee, Sufiyan will finally have the opportunity to petition U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a waiver based on the fact that his “support” for the LTTE was coerced under threat of death.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
