The Justice Department has issued an interim final rule that would fundamentally reshape how the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) handles appeals, sharply restricting merits review, shortening filing deadlines, and compressing briefing schedules in the name of clearing a massive backlog.
Effective March 9, 2026, appeals to the BIA from immigration judge (IJ) decisions will no longer be automatically reviewed on the merits. Except for a narrow set of case types, the Board “shall summarily dismiss” all appeals from decisions issued on or after that date unless a majority of the permanent Board members votes en banc to accept the appeal for full adjudication.
If a single Board member does not refer an appeal for en banc consideration, it is dismissed without further review. If referred, the Board has 10 days to vote en banc, and failure to vote within that window is deemed a dismissal. All summary dismissals must be issued in a written order within 15 days of the appeal being filed.
When an appeal is summarily dismissed under the new scheme, the IJ’s decision is deemed adopted by the Board and becomes the final agency decision and “final order of removal” for purposes of federal court review. The Attorney General’s certification authority under existing regulations is preserved and is not limited by the new dismissal rule.
The rule carves out specific exceptions: the Board will continue to adjudicate on the merits certain DHS petition and waiver appeals, as well as bond- and custody-related appeals. These are treated differently because they are effectively the last available administrative step and are often not subject to petition-for-review jurisdiction in the courts of appeals.
The interim rule also slashes the BIA appeal filing deadline from 30 days to 10 calendar days in nearly all cases. Going forward, the Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR-26) must be filed directly with the Board within 10 days of an IJ’s oral decision or the mailing or electronic notification of a written decision, with the usual extension to the next business day if the deadline falls on a weekend or legal holiday.
One significant statutory exception remains: when an IJ adjudicates an asylum application and denies it on grounds other than the bars in section 208(a)(2)(A), (B), or (C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the alien retains a 30-day period to appeal, consistent with INA section 208(d)(5)(A)(iv).
If asylum is denied because of an Asylum Cooperative Agreement bar, the one-year filing bar, or a prior-denial bar, the 10-day deadline applies on the theory that such cases fall outside the specific statutory asylum procedures that mandate 30 days.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) justifies the shorter deadline by pointing to EOIR’s nationwide electronic filing system, which it says has eliminated mail delays and business-hours barriers, as well as to other EOIR appellate schemes that already use 10-day appeal periods. DOJ acknowledges that the reduction from 30 to 10 days may make it harder for some pro se respondents to find counsel after losing before an IJ but concludes that the interest in “timely adjudications” outweighs those concerns.
For appeals the Board decides to hear on the merits, briefing rules will also tighten. The Board will set a briefing schedule only in cases it has not summarily dismissed. In all such direct IJ-appeal cases, both parties must file briefs simultaneously within 20 days of the Board’s scheduling order, regardless of whether the respondent is detained.
If a transcript is required, the 20-day period begins when the transcript is made available. In transcript-free cases, briefs must be due no more than 35 days after the appeal was filed. The Board will not accept reply briefs unless it specifically invites or orders one. Extensions of time are barred except in “exceptional circumstances,” as defined in INA section 240(e)(1), which focuses on serious events beyond the alien’s control, such as serious illness or death in the immediate family. Workload, travel, and similar issues “within the control” of parties or representatives do not qualify.
The rule preserves the Board’s discretion to consider late briefs and request supplemental briefing, including amicus input, when cases present significant or novel issues. DOJ argues that a single, simultaneous schedule is easier to administer than the current mix of detained and non-detained timelines, and that reply briefs “rarely, if ever” add meaningful value but do extend the life of appeals.
The interim rule also pares back procedural steps for assembling the record on appeal. EOIR removes the requirement that IJs review and approve transcripts before the record is sent to the Board, calling that review unnecessary in light of modern digital audio-recording systems and specific procedures for parties to challenge transcript defects at the BIA. The revised regulation directs that, for appeals not summarily dismissed, the record be forwarded “as promptly as possible” upon receipt of the appeal.
At the Board level, once briefing and any other submissions are complete, case-processing benchmarks remain: single-member cases should be decided within 90 days, and three-member panel cases within 180 days, measured from completion of the record. If a panel cannot meet those limits, the Chair must either reassign the case to herself or a Vice Chair for decision within 14 days, or refer it to the Attorney General. A dissenting or concurring opinion that is not finished by the end of any extension period will be omitted, and the majority decision will issue alone.
The rule also removes provisions that allowed the Chief Appellate Immigration Judge to unilaterally extend adjudication deadlines or hold groups of cases in abeyance pending possible future court or regulatory developments, describing those authorities as impractical and vulnerable to misuse as tools of delay.
DOJ frames the rule as a response to what it calls an unprecedented BIA caseload, attributing the problem to “gross mismanagement and poor leadership” in prior years and to the limits of previous streamlining efforts. Between fiscal year 2015 and the end of fiscal year 2025, the Board’s pending appeals ballooned from 37,285 to 202,946 — more than a fivefold increase. During that period, the number of authorized Board members rose to 28, but annual completions exceeded 2015 levels in only three years, leading the Attorney General in 2025 to cut the authorized size back to 15.
The preamble emphasizes that from October 1, 2023, through September 15, 2025, the Board sustained just 123 out of 55,065 case appeals on the merits (excluding certain categories), suggesting that in “the vast majority” of appeals the BIA ultimately agreed with the IJ. DOJ argues that forcing the Board to write decisions in thousands of cases that will mostly end in affirmance only “serves as a vessel for further delay” and offers little benefit to either side.
Beyond internal efficiency, DOJ invokes a broader enforcement and foreign-policy rationale. It says this and related measures are designed to enable EOIR to more quickly finalize the removal of “millions of illegal aliens” who lack valid claims, thereby discouraging future unlawful entries by undercutting “expectations of significant delays” in the immigration system.
The rule cites ongoing U.S. negotiations and agreements with countries such as Honduras, Guatemala, Uganda, and Ecuador on processing protection claims and transferring third-country nationals. It links swifter adjudications to the administration’s effort to show international partners that Washington is serious about reducing illegal migration and facilitating removals and voluntary returns.
On that basis, DOJ concludes that the rule is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirements both as a procedural rule and as an exercise of the United States’ “foreign affairs function,” though it still invites public comment through March 9, 2026. The agency says it does not anticipate significant economic costs from the changes, which it characterizes as removing “obstacles to efficient consideration of case appeals,” and finds no need for a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis or other major regulatory-impact reviews.
The rule revises several EOIR regulations to revert from the term “noncitizen” to the statutory term “alien,” and from “unaccompanied child/children” to “unaccompanied alien child/children,” aligning EOIR’s wording with the Immigration and Nationality Act. These terminology changes apply across multiple sections of 8 C.F.R. parts 1003, 1208, and 1240 and follow a 2025 EOIR rule that similarly moved to statutory language in other contexts.
The interim final rule, published at 91 Fed. Reg. 5267 under docket number EOIR-26-AB37, takes effect March 9, 2026, with comments due the same day via Regulations.gov or by mail to EOIR’s Office of Policy in Falls Church, Virginia.
Kishor Panthi
View More PostsKishor Panthi is the founder and editor-in-chief of Khasokhas and NepYork. He is the author of three books, “Kampan,” "UNTRANSLATABLE" and “Zero Mile.” He writes about social issues, immigration, and politics.
