Immigrants who fail to pay a mandatory annual asylum fee will lose their chance at asylum, but immigration judges cannot use the nonpayment to throw out requests for deportation protection under international human rights treaties, a federal appellate immigration panel ruled.
In a precedent-setting decision published July 24, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that while paying the fee is a strict requirement for asylum seekers, missing the deadline does not strip applicants of their right to pursue statutory withholding of removal or protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
The ruling in Matter of L-F-R– addresses new financial compliance rules established under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a legislative package passed by Congress that enacted mandatory, non-waivable initial and annual fees for pending asylum applications.
The test case centered on a native and citizen of Cuba who filed an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, known as Form I-589, in January 2025. An immigration judge ordered her in February 2026 to pay the required annual asylum fee by March 16. When she failed to submit payment on time, the judge pretermitted—or effectively dismissed—her entire application package, including her claims for non-asylum protections.
On appeal, the Department of Homeland Security argued that because a single Form I-589 is used to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and torture protection together, failing to pay the fee should result in the abandonment of the entire application package.
A three-judge panel for the appellate board, led by Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Gorman, rejected the department’s broader interpretation, pointing directly to the explicit wording enacted by Congress.
“The OBBBA’s discussion of fees does not anywhere mention statutory withholding of removal… nor does it mention the regulations implementing the CAT,” Gorman wrote for the panel. “Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally.”
Under the board’s decision, asylum seekers face strict compliance measures regarding financial obligations. Paying both the initial filing fee and any recurring annual fees required by the law remains a non-waivable requirement for asylum eligibility. Immigration judges maintain full authority to set payment deadlines, and missing them will result in the asylum claim being deemed abandoned.
However, protection claims under statutory withholding of removal and the Convention Against Torture remain intact despite nonpayment. Because those measures are mandatory forms of protection governed by distinct statutory and international treaty obligations—rather than discretionary relief like asylum—they cannot be dismissed solely for failure to pay an asylum fee.
Following the ruling, the board sustained the Cuban applicant’s appeal and remanded her case back to the immigration court, ordering the judge to evaluate her remaining claims on their merits. The decision resolves key legal questions raised in amicus briefs filed by several immigrant advocacy organizations, including the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, the National Immigration Project, and the National Immigrant Justice Center.
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.
