On February 4, the BIA issued an opinion that provides guidelines for assessing so-called “expert witness” evidence in removal cases, addressing a critical gap in how immigration judges evaluate evidence in humanitarian protection claims. The opinion in question is Matter of G-M-I-, a case that involved an application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
What changed
The Board of Immigration Appeals held that Immigration Judges must decide the probative weight of an expert witness opinion for themselves, and no automatic deference applies just because a witness has credentials. The BIA’s Matter of G-M-I- decision mandates that Immigration Judges independently evaluate expert testimony, and experts can no longer provide legal conclusions or replace specific record facts with general predictions.
In the underlying case, the immigration judge had granted CAT deferral based heavily on expert testimony about torture risks in China for drug-trafficking offenders. The BIA sustained the government’s appeal and reversed the IJ, concluding the expert witness’s opinions lacked a “sufficient factual basis”. The Board identified two specific deficiencies: the expert failed to show he had any “direct knowledge of the extent to which China tortures those convicted of drug trafficking crimes abroad” and also failed to “articulate any past professional experience with death penalty cases in China”, and the expert admitted that there wasn’t much in the way of statistics on torture or executions and “failed to provide any meaningful estimations on the number of individuals sentenced to death”.
Why it matters
This ruling requires practitioners to ensure expert reports are deeply rooted in the respondent’s individual facts to maintain probative weight in protection claims. The decision dismantles a common but costly practice: presenting an expert primarily because of their credentials or general country expertise, without anchoring their opinions in the specific respondent’s circumstances or the actual record evidence available.
The ruling boils down to qualification, foundation, fit, and scope—if any step fails, probative weight typically drops. An expert must be qualified in their field, the expert’s opinion must rest on concrete facts in the record that match the respondent’s situation, the expert’s conclusions must actually address the respondent’s claim, and the expert must stay within their lane and not opine on legal conclusions or substitute opinion for documentary evidence.
Additionally, earlier BIA decisions reinforce this approach: Matter of M-A-M-Z- and Matter of J-G-T- both reflect the same discipline—expert opinions can help, but they do not control, and generalized reasoning cannot be used to reach case-determining findings without a solid foundation.
Way forward
-
Rebuild expert declarations from scratch. Review any pending expert declarations against the four-part test (qualification, foundation, fit, scope). Rewrite sections where the expert offers generalized opinion unsupported by record facts or respondent-specific evidence.
-
Document the factual predicate early. Before retaining an expert, gather and organize documentary evidence—country conditions, medical records, corroboration, testimony transcripts—that the expert can reference and critique. An expert declaration that simply incorporates the respondent’s testimony without independent analysis is vulnerable.
-
Identify and disclose bias or reluctance to consider contrary evidence. If your expert has published or spoken on behalf of advocacy positions related to the country, relief, or respondent’s condition, surface that proactively and explain why it doesn’t undermine their analysis. The BIA will be looking for signs that the expert refuses to engage with contradictory evidence.
-
Align filing deadlines with the new appellate rule changes. An interim final rule issued February 6, 2026 and effective March 9, 2026 restructures parts of the BIA appeals process, shortened filing windows raise the stakes for preserving expert-evidence issues early, and some appeal-related deadlines may be compressed. Missing a deadline can forfeit review options.
Disclaimer
We are a software and research company, not a law firm. This article does not constitute legal advice. Always consult with a licensed immigration attorney about your specific case and facts. Policy can change without notice; verify all information against the primary source linked above before relying on it in a filing or hearing.