Immigration law
Patria Laureano loses bid to block deportation as Third Circuit splits
The court rejected her torture claim outright. On withholding of removal, the judges split evenly, leaving the older immigration opinion at the center of a bigger dispute without a majority answer.
Patria Laureano did not win protection from removal in the Third Circuit. The panel denied her CAT claim and divided evenly on withholding of removal, which leaves Matter of Y-L in place for this case and unresolved as a broader rule.
- Laureano lost both protection claims in the Third Circuit.
- The court denied her CAT claim and split on withholding of removal.
- Judges disagreed over whether Matter of Y-L still controls.
- The larger fight over that 2002 opinion is unresolved.
- In the Third Circuit, Patria Laureano lost both paths she asked the court to review
In the Third Circuit, Patria Laureano lost both paths she asked the court to review. The judges denied her Convention Against Torture, or CAT, claim and split evenly on withholding of removal, a narrower form of protection that can stop deportation to a place where someone faces persecution.
That leaves Laureano without protection in this case, and it keeps an old immigration rule at the center of a bigger fight that the panel did not settle.
The rule behind the split
The fight inside the opinion was over Matter of Y-L, a 2002 attorney general opinion that immigration judges may rely on in withholding cases. One judge on the panel would treat that opinion as a bar to Laureano’s claim.
Another judge would say Matter of Y-L went beyond the attorney general’s power and was ultra vires, meaning beyond legal authority. That disagreement is why the panel produced no majority answer on whether the rule still controls similar claims.
What remains unanswered
The precedential opinion, filed May 29, 2026, settles Laureano’s case only in the narrowest sense. She loses here, but the broader question of whether Matter of Y-L can keep shutting down similar withholding claims is still open.
For people seeking immigration protection, that uncertainty matters. Lawyers and immigration judges are left with a rule one judge would keep and another would discard, even though the court did not resolve the dispute by majority vote.