The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an interim “Final Rule” on February 6, 2026, concerning significant modifications to the procedures of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which will take effect on March 9. The key changes include shortening the appeal period for immigration court losses from 30 days to 10 natural days, including weekends. Additionally, automatic/summary dismissal becomes the default, with no hearings unless a majority of judges vote to review the case.
Exceptions to this new rule include specific asylum cases and motions to reopen, but in general, cases appealed to the BIA will no longer automatically undergo substantive review. Instead, the decision to accept a case will be determined by judge vote. If a majority of the permanent members of the BIA do not agree to accept a case within 10 days, the appeal will be automatically dismissed. Furthermore, if the majority of members vote against accepting a case, it will not proceed to substantive review, resulting in the appeal being denied. Once an appeal is dismissed by the BIA, the immigration judge’s original decision (usually a deportation order) becomes the final administrative decision, and the deportation order takes immediate effect.
The rule has been published in the Federal Register and is set to address the significant backlog of cases at the BIA. The backlog of BIA cases increased from 37,285 in the 2015 fiscal year to 202,946 in the 2025 fiscal year, a 5.44-fold increase.
The DOJ determined that the current BIA is unable to conduct substantive reviews on all cases. Statistics show that from October 2023 to September 2025, out of 55,065 cases appealed to the BIA, only 123 were successful, with a success rate of just 0.22%. Most appeals either align with the decision of immigration judges or require procedural processing such as updating background checks.
This adjustment will not affect existing cases but will only apply to decisions made by immigration judges after March 9, 2026. Current pending appeals will not be affected.
The DOJ argues that the limited resources of the BIA require reform to function efficiently and prevent worsening backlogs. Critics view this as a means to expedite deportations, potentially weakening due process.
The rule specifies that the policy change aims to enable the BIA to focus on a select few impactful cases rather than automatically reviewing all appeals like in the past, where the success rate was extremely low at around 0.22%.
Rejections must be completed within 15 days of submission of the case. The appeal period has been shortened from 30 days to 10 calendar days, excluding a few asylum cases. The mandatory review of immigration judge transcripts has been eliminated.
The BIA may potentially shift its focus from substantive errors (such as incorrect legal application or insufficient evidence) to strict adherence to procedural rules (procedural compliance). The shortened appeal period coupled with automatic dismissals may expedite the arrest, detention, and deportation of immigrants by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as the window for appeals narrows significantly, reducing the time for procedural delays.
The DOJ claims that this will allow the BIA to handle appeals involving complex legal issues, but critics are concerned that it may lead to many immigrants losing administrative remedies and increase the burden on federal courts (as rejected appeals can directly go to circuit courts).
If the BIA dismisses an appeal automatically, the immigration judge’s decision becomes the final administrative decision, and the appellant can seek judicial review directly from the federal circuit court. This may be a faster route than waiting for BIA review (which could take years), but federal court reviews have stringent standards and a high difficulty in winning.
This rule is part of the accelerated immigration enforcement in the second term of the Trump administration, seemingly aimed at resolving backlogs but significantly limiting administrative appeal rights, expediting more deportation orders. The rule is currently in the comment period (deadline March 9, 2026) and may face adjustments or challenges in the future. If you or someone you know has related immigration cases, it is advisable to consult with a professional immigration lawyer to assess the impact. **Approval of I-130 does not constitute an exception for motion to reopen cases.
Manager Wang from the law firm Qin Susan Law shared a recent case where an individual who had received a deportation order married a U.S. citizen and had children. However, even if the immigration agency approves the I-130 form for the immigrant spouse, the case cannot be reopened (motion to reopen). A recent ruling by the BIA has closed this loophole, and the BIA will not revisit deportation orders that have taken effect.
Moreover, individuals with final deportation orders who do not depart could face daily fines of $998, as affirmed by legal precedents supporting enforcement.
Manager Wang noted that the immigration court has added 33 new judges, many with military backgrounds. The training emphasizes rapid and high-volume adjudication, leaning towards denials, with cases possibly concluding within six months to a year and a high rejection rate. After older judges are dismissed, pending cases will be handled by new judges following stricter procedures.
Manager Wang emphasized the importance of submitting comprehensive documentation, particularly ensuring the completeness of the I-589 form (detailing transit countries, providing full disclosure without omissions). Relying solely on stories, personal statements, or a few testimonies may result in swift procedural denials by the new judges.
For appeal cases, preparation of BIA appellate materials should begin promptly, along with preparation for a federal circuit court appeal, as the BIA may reject appeals within a few days to a couple of weeks. For weaker cases with thin evidence, adjusting strategies is recommended, as delaying tactics may not be effective.
If apprehended, the chances of bail are low, and immediate consideration of a writ of habeas corpus is advised. Seeking relief from federal courts through a lawyer, although expensive, may be the only viable option.