Original Date Announced

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) issued an interim final rule, "Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals," that amends DOJ regulations to streamline administrative appellate review by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The rule implements the following changes:

• Establishes that the default for appeals will be summary dismissal, unless a majority of the current BIA members vote to consider the appeal on the merits within 15 days of filing the appeal;
• Shortens the timeline for filing an appeal with the BIA from 30 days to 10 days (except for certain specified asylum appeals);
• For nondismissed cases, requires simultaneous briefing within 20 days of the BIA setting the schedule, with no reply briefs and limited extensions;
• Eliminates the requirement that immigration judges continue to review transcripts of their oral decisions before adjudication of appeal;
• Removes or revises provisions authorizing the Chief Appellate Immigration Judge to either extend adjudication deadlines in particular cases or to hold cases based on pending action; and
• Makes terminology changes, including replacing the word "noncitizen" with "alien."

The changes purportedly seek to address the backlog in BIA decisions by providing the BIA with more flexibility in reviewing appeals and allowing it to "focus on appeals with particularly novel or complex legal questions."

Trump 2.0 [ID #2192]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.02.26 Complaint - Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR

Several immigrant legal service providers filed suit to challenge the new EOIR interim final rule (IFR), stating that it "systematically disadvantages immigrants seeking to establish their claims and entitlement to relief from removal." The complaint alleges that the IFR violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was promulgated without notice-and-comment rulemaking, exceeds the agency's statutory authority, and is arbitrary and capricious. The complaint further alleges that the IFR violates the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment and fails to comply with the certification requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).

The complaint asks the court to stay the IFR, issue a preliminary and/or permanent injunction, declare that the IFR is unlawful, and vacate or set aside the IFR. In the alternative, if the IFR takes effect, it asks the court to "declare that an appeal to the BIA is not an administrative remedy available as of right and thus is not required for exhaustion purposes, under 8 § U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) or otherwise." Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR, No. 1:26-cv-00696 (D.D.C.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.03.08 Opinion - Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR

District Judge Randolph Moss, treating plaintiffs' motion for stay as a motion for summary judgment, issued an order vacating and setting aside the IFR insofar as it:

1. requires the BIA to summarily dismiss all appeals of any decision issued on or after March 9, 2026 no later than 15 days after the Notice of Appeal is filed, unless a single BIA member refers the appeal for consideration by the BIA en banc, and a majority of the permanent BIA members vote en banc to accept the appeal for adjudication on the merits, no later than 10 days after the appeal is filed;
2. requires in all but the expressly exempted asylum cases that the Notice of Appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) be filed with the BIA within 10 calendar days of the IJ’s decision; and
3. deems any issue not raised in the Notice of Appeal from a decision of an IJ waived.

The order follows from the court's finding that the IFR was promulgated without observance of procedure required by law. However, the court denied relief with respect to the IFR's remaining provisions, finding that plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that giving immediate effect to those provisions will cause them irreparable injury. The court remanded the issue to EOIR for further proceedings. Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR, No. 1:26-cv-00696 (D.D.C.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**