A Rwandan woman accused of involvement in the 1994 genocide lost her US refugee status; an appeals court has now allowed her legal challenge to proceed

A woman admitted to the United States as a refugee in 2005 has won an appeal after challenging the termination of her refugee status following an investigation into alleged participation in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. On 5 October 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that Agnes Mukantagara’s legal challenge could proceed, reversing a lower court’s dismissal of her case. Mukantagara has denied the allegations, arguing that the authorities relied on false claims. The appeals court did not determine whether she participated in the genocide but ruled that the courts could review whether she met the legal definition of a refugee when she entered the country.Why was her US refugee status revokedMukantagara denied participating in the genocide and challenged the basis on which the immigration agency had terminated her status. According to the appeals court's account, she argued that USCIS had repeated false allegations made by a politically motivated organisation acting on behalf of Rwanda's ruling party. The dispute therefore involved both the agency's assessment of her eligibility for refugee status and the legal question of whether that assessment could be examined by a federal court. The government subsequently placed Mukantagara and her son in removal proceedings, beginning a separate series of immigration court decisions concerning their ability to remain in the United States.During the removal proceedings, an immigration court found Mukantagara credible and granted her asylum. However, it also ruled that it could not review USCIS's earlier decision to terminate her refugee status. Her son's case followed a different course. The immigration court denied Shyaka asylum, finding that he did not independently qualify and could no longer qualify as his mother's dependent because he had aged out of eligibility by the time she applied for asylum. The Board of Immigration Appeals later sent the decision granting asylum to Mukantagara back for further proceedings and upheld the denial of asylum to Shyaka. On reconsideration, the immigration court again granted Mukantagara asylum, while the related appeals remained pending.Why did the court allow her lawsuit against USCIS to proceedMukantagara and her son brought a lawsuit against USCIS under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the termination of her refugee status. Their case had already reached the Tenth Circuit on an earlier jurisdictional question. In 2023, the appeals court held that a provision directing certain challenges connected with removal orders to the courts of appeals did not prevent the district court from considering their lawsuit. After the case returned to the lower court, the government advanced another argument, relying on a different provision of immigration law that restricts judicial review of certain discretionary agency decisions.The district court accepted the government's argument and dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Mukantagara and Shyaka appealed again, arguing that the statutory restriction did not apply to USCIS's determination that she had not qualified as a refugee when she entered the country. The Tenth Circuit initially agreed with them but later vacated its earlier opinion after the US Supreme Court issued a decision in Mullin v. Doe in 2026. The appeals court requested further arguments from both sides before reconsidering the case. Its final ruling, issued on 5 October, again concluded that the specific challenge brought by Mukantagara and her son was not barred by the jurisdictional provision at issue.What did the Tenth Circuit rule about refugee status terminationThe Tenth Circuit's central finding was that the law governing the termination of refugee status involves two separate decisions. First, USCIS must determine whether the person met the statutory definition of a refugee at the time of admission. Second, if the agency finds that the person did not qualify, it has the statutory discretion to decide whether to terminate that person's refugee status. The court concluded that the first decision is mandatory and nondiscretionary, while the second involves discretion. Because Mukantagara and her son challenged the first decision, the court held that the restriction on judicial review did not prevent their claim from proceeding.In its conclusion, the court stated: “We hold that terminating refugee status under 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(4) is a two-step process, and the first step is mandatory and nondiscretionary.” It reversed the district court's order and sent the case back for further proceedings. The decision means that Mukantagara can continue challenging USCIS's finding about her refugee eligibility at the time she entered the United States. However, the appeals court did not decide whether USCIS was correct about her alleged involvement in the Rwandan genocide, nor did it restore her refugee status. It also left other arguments that the district court had not considered unresolved. The next stage of the case will therefore take place in the lower court, where the remaining issues can be addressed in accordance with the appeals court's ruling.You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.