Recently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) introduced an interim final rule granting the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) enhanced discretion to decline reviewing certain cases. This rule has sparked concerns surrounding due process among immigration advocates. The new rule, effective March 9, aims to streamline the appellate process by making review of immigration judge decisions discretionary and shortening the appeal period from 30 days to 10 days. These changes are intended to alleviate the growing backlog of cases the Board faces.
In recent years, the BIA has seen structural changes intended to address its caseload. In 2021, the number of Board members was increased to 28 to manage the backlog. However, this number was reduced by Attorney General Pam Bondi in 2025 to 15, highlighting the lack of evidence that a larger Board would expedite adjudications. The newest regulatory changes represent significant procedural alterations in how immigration appeals are managed. More details about these developments can be found here.
Criticism from immigration rights advocates has been swift. Many argue that reducing the appeal timeframe may facilitate quicker detentions and removals by the Department of Homeland Security, thus compromising immigrants’ fundamental rights. Ian Seruelo, an immigration attorney, expressed concerns that such policies erode due process and merely shift the backlog rather than solve it. There is apprehension that if the BIA dismisses cases without thorough review, immigrants will turn to federal courts for relief, potentially inundating them with appeals.
This influx of cases could present significant challenges, with federal courts already managing substantial litigation related to immigration policies. Greg Chen from the American Immigration Lawyers Association describes the rule as a core shift in BIA’s functional responsibilities, warning that this could lead to federal courts being overwhelmed.
Legal experts anticipate that the courts may need to evaluate whether these regulatory revisions adhere to both statutory and constitutional due process standards. Johnny King, an immigration attorney, suggests that legal challenges against the rule are likely once it becomes operational. The implications of these changes could therefore extend well beyond the procedural aspects, potentially reshaping the landscape of immigration appeals in the United States.