Engaging in Terrorist Activity

Date of Information: 11/13/2026

Check back soon; we update these materials frequently.

Engaging Reaches Beyond Personally Committing an Attack

INA § 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) defines engaging in terrorist activity. Its categories include committing or specified incitement; preparing or planning; gathering target information; soliciting funds or value; soliciting individuals for specified conduct or membership; and material support. Conduct may be analyzed in an individual capacity or as an organization's member.

The review must identify which category is alleged. Evidence establishing one category does not remove the need to analyze that category's elements, recipients, intent or knowledge requirements, and exceptions.

Distinguish Planning, Solicitation, and Recruitment

For a planning allegation, identify the proposed activity and the person's role rather than treating every meeting as operational preparation. For target-information allegations, identify what information was gathered, its connection to potential targets, and the underlying evidence.

Solicitation provisions distinguish funds or value for an activity from funds for an organization, and distinguish recruitment for conduct from recruitment for organizational membership. Determine what the person actually asked others to do, who was being assisted, and the relevant organization tier. A legal memorandum should follow those distinctions instead of using ‘fundraising’ or ‘recruitment’ as a complete analysis.

Material Support Requires a Separate Examination

Support allegations may involve money, transportation, shelter, communications, documentation, training, or other assistance. The important questions include what was supplied, to whom, when, what the person knew, and how the assistance relates to the statutory recipients or activity.

In Matter of A-C-M-, 27 I&N Dec. 303 (BIA 2018), the majority treated forced household labor for guerrillas as material support and rejected a quantitative minimum. Do not assume that unpaid work or modest assistance is legally irrelevant. See our fuller Material Support guide.

Analyze Each Event Rather Than the Person's General Reputation

Build one row per alleged act: date; conduct; recipient; organization; tier; source; knowledge or intent; coercion; and asserted statutory paragraph. Identify disputed links and missing evidence. Explain any argument that the act, recipient, or organization does not fit the clause relied upon.

A client who describes a political or humanitarian purpose may still need a detailed statutory analysis. Record that purpose accurately, but do not let it substitute for the elements. Where coercion is involved, develop the facts for exemption consideration while preserving supported arguments concerning the underlying ground.

Membership Is Not Required for Every Engaging Allegation

Providing support or soliciting assistance can raise issues without formal membership. Conversely, a membership allegation belongs under its own statutory provision. Keep the two analyses separate so that defeating one allegation does not leave another unanswered.

Preserve Exceptions and Consider Authorized Exemptions

Certain Tier III solicitation and material-support provisions contain specific lack-of-knowledge exceptions. The exact clause and evidentiary burden matter. A separate secretarial exemption may address qualifying conduct under an existing authorization, but must be analyzed independently.

Continue to Knowledge Requirement and Duress and Coercion. Document the requested legal conclusions and supporting evidence for every ground actually raised.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Must the person have carried out an attack?

No. The definition includes additional specified conduct, including planning, solicitation, recruitment, and support.

2. Must the person have been a formal organization member?

Not for every engaging allegation. The particular statutory clause must be examined.

3. Does coercion end the inquiry?

No. Coercion must be examined under the relevant law and can be important to an authorized exemption, but it is not a universal implied defense.