Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Ventura: Courts Must Let the Immigration Agency Decide New Issues First

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 13, 2026

INS v. Ventura applies the ordinary remand rule when judicial review reveals an immigration issue committed to agency factfinding and discretion.

The BIA rejected the protection claims on another ground

Ventura sought asylum and withholding based on persecution in Guatemala. The BIA rejected his claim without deciding whether later changes in Guatemala eliminated any continuing threat.

The Ninth Circuit decided the unaddressed issue

After reversing the BIA’s reasoning, the court of appeals evaluated the government’s changed-circumstances argument itself, even though both parties asked for a remand and the agency had not made the relevant findings.

Agency decisionmaking had priority

The Supreme Court explained that courts reviewing agency action ordinarily remand unresolved matters entrusted to the agency. The BIA should evaluate evidence, apply its expertise, and exercise any delegated discretion before a reviewing court passes judgment.

The judgment was vacated

The Court summarily reversed and required remand to the BIA. Ventura does not prevent judicial review of the eventual agency decision; it governs who must make the initial determination on an issue the agency has not reached.

Key takeaways

• Identify which issues the BIA actually decided.
• Ask for remand when a necessary agency question remains open.
• Do not invite appellate factfinding on an undeveloped agency record.
• Preserve judicial review after the agency completes its analysis.