The Board of Immigration Appeals rendered a precedential decision establishing new limits on when military conscription-related fears may form the basis of an asylum claim. In Matter of R-A-N, 29 I&N Dec. 739 (BIA 2026), issued July 7, 2026, the Board held that absent connection to one of the five protected grounds Congress enumerated in the asylum statute, persecution on account of conscription doesn’t amount to persecution on account of one of those protected grounds. Their ruling clarifies the necessity for establishing a nexus of harm.
Background
The Respondent, a native and citizen of Russia, departed Russia for the United States in October 2022 during a mobilization effort for Russia’s war in Ukraine. He applied for asylum but the immigration judge assigned to his case determined that there was no nexus between his fear of conscription and any of the protected grounds asylum is based upon. Normally this would be the end of the asylum claim. However, the immigration judge granted asylum anyway, relying on the argument that because Russia’s military had attracted international condemnation for its actions in Ukraine, forcing someone to join would be persecution on its own. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed to the Board.
The Decision
The Board reversed. Reaffirming language that practitioners have long relied on from Matter of A-G, 19 I&N Dec. 502 (BIA 1987), the Board noted that general conscription enforced on a country’s citizenry is not persecution by itself. There are two exceptions to the rule. The first is where punishments for draft evasion are unusually severe or used in a discriminatory manner. The second exception, at issue here, is where military conscription would cause an individual to engage in the international community condemns.
Impact
But in this decision, the Board clarified that even that second exception can’t stand on its own. A respondent still has to connect it to a protected ground, meaning race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Pointing to international criticism of the Russian military in general isn’t enough. The respondent has to show he personally would be forced into that conduct because of who he is or what he believes, not just because conscription is unpleasant or morally fraught.
In summation, the nexus requirement isn’t optional and isn’t satisfied by pointing at the broader war. Evidence needs to connect the feared harm directly to a protected ground: past political activity, an imputed political opinion, religious belief, ethnicity, or membership in a targeted group. General conditions in a home country, aren’t the same thing as persecution on account of who the applicant is.
As always, ILBSG actively monitors ongoing U.S. immigration news. If you have questions about any U.S. immigration related issue, contact us. Working with an experienced attorney ensures you get the right advice based on the most recent laws. In an ever-evolving immigration policy landscape, it’s particularly critical you get the right advice.