Federal Court Blocks Significant Pieces of Administration’s Sweeping Immigration Appeals Rule That Eliminates Meaningful Judicial Review

Order Halts Implementation of Dangerous Steps that Would Have Dismantled Safeguards at the Board of Immigration Appeals

Washington, D.C. — The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order late last night in Amica Center for Immigrant Rights et al. v. Executive Office for Immigration Review et al., blocking significant pieces of the Trump-Vance administration’s new policy that sought to eliminate meaningful appellate review before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). 

Plaintiffs in the case include Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Brooklyn Defender Services, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, HIAS, and National Immigrant Justice Center. Democracy Forward, the American Immigration Council, and National Immigrant Justice Center represent the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit and motion for preliminary relief challenge the February 6, 2026, Interim Final Rule (IFR), “Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals,” which was set to take effect today, March 9, 2026. The IFR would have imposed sweeping changes that would have eviscerated noncitizens’ right to appeal decisions in their immigration cases that have now been blocked, including:

• Reduce the time to file most appeals from 30 days to 10 days;
• Require summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of permanent BIA members vote within 10 days to accept the case for review; and
• Permit dismissal decisions before transcripts are created or records are transmitted.

“At a time when the due process rights of immigrants are under attack, this ruling prevents the BIA from reaching the point of near self-destruction,” said Emilie Raber, Senior Attorney at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights. “We hope that this decision is the first step of many steps in ensuring that immigration courts reach decisions based on the law rather than on pre-determined outcomes.”

 “Today’s ruling preserves a vital avenue for judicial review in removal proceedings,” said Lucas Marquez, Director of Civil Rights & Law Reform at Brooklyn Defender Services, “And reminds government agencies to follow proper procedures when attempting to make sweeping changes to regulations.  

“This ruling keeps in place a basic, yet critical, protection for immigrants facing removal: the ability to appeal their case,” said Laura St. John, Legal Director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. “As the administration continues to try to deport as many people as they can quickly and often without a fair day in court, it is critical for everyone to have the opportunity to file an appeal. Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency.” 

“Today, the court has again held the federal government to its foundational responsibility to afford basic fairness and due process to all whose rights it seeks to curtail,” said Stephen Brown, Director of Immigration Legal Services at HIAS. “We are grateful to our counsel in this case, and proud to stand with our co-plaintiffs to work for a fair immigration system.”

“Today’s ruling is an important win in the face of an administration that is intent on dismantling our immigration system at any cost, including betraying our country’s shared values of the importance of due process and access to counsel,” said Mary Georgevich, Senior Litigation Attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “While imperfect, the Board of Immigration Appeals is the body that Congress has mandated to review deportation orders when the immigration courts get it wrong. Allowing the Trump administration’s reckless proposal to block immigrants from a fair opportunity for review of bad decisions would have resulted in people being returned to danger and families unjustly separated, all to serve a racist mass deportation agenda. We are grateful the court seemed to see this proposed rule for what it was and is ruling to uphold both due process and rule of law.” 

“Today’s decision makes it clear that the Trump-Vance administration cannot play games with the immigration appeals system to eliminate basic due process and fast-track deportations,” said Erez Reuveni, Senior Counsel at Democracy Forward, who presented the oral argument. “Once again, no matter how hard this administration tries to hide its cruel and unlawful actions behind an ‘immigration policy,’ a federal court has made clear that the government must follow the law and cannot strip people of their basic rights. This is another demonstration that litigation is powerful. We will continue representing our plaintiffs in court to defend their rights and hold this administration accountable.”

“This order protects a critical safeguard in our immigration system: the ability to appeal a court decision,” said Suchita Mathur, Senior Litigation Attorney at the American Immigration Council. “This rule would have led to the rushed deportations of untold people before their cases could even be properly reviewed. Today’s decision helps protect basic fairness in our immigration courts.”

The IFR was issued without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking period and fundamentally restructures appellate review in removal proceedings. By requiring summary dismissal unless the full Board acts within 10 days — before transcripts are created — the rule makes meaningful review functionally impossible in most cases.

The legal team at Democracy Forward includes Erez Reuveni, Allyson Scher, Catherine Carroll, and Robin Thurston. Counsel at American Immigration Council include Michelle Lapointe and Suchi Mathur.

Read the opinion here and the order here.

The post Federal Court Blocks Significant Pieces of Administration’s Sweeping Immigration Appeals Rule That Eliminates Meaningful Judicial Review appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/ewy4Omg
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

Dear Immigrant: What the Visa Does Not Give You

Letter 03

Re: What the Visa Does Not Give You

Dear Immigrant,

The visa gives you permission to be present. It does not give you belonging, safety, stability, or the right to be treated with dignity. Those things are separate from the visa and some of them are not guaranteed by anything.

I want to be precise about what legal status gives you and what it does not, because the conflation of the two — the assumption that the visa solves the problem rather than simply opening a door — is one of the most common and most damaging misunderstandings I have seen immigrants carry.

Legal status means the government has agreed to let you be here under certain conditions. It does not mean the society has agreed to welcome you. It does not mean your employer will treat you fairly, your landlord will maintain your apartment, your colleagues will include you, your neighbors will acknowledge you. These things happen or they do not happen based on the specific people involved and the specific conditions of the place you have arrived in. The visa is not a guarantee of any of them.

The gap between legal permission to be present and actual belonging is the gap you will spend years trying to close. Some immigrants close it. Some do not, and not because they failed but because the society they arrived in was not structured to receive them fully. Both outcomes are possible. The visa does not determine which one.

Know what you have when you have the visa. Know what you still need to build. The visa is the beginning of the work, not the completion of it.

The door is open. What is behind it is still to be determined.

From the other side of several doors,
A former immigrant

dearimmigrant.com

Legal Groups Sue to Block Rule Gutting Immigration Appeals

Emergency Filing Seeks Court Order to Halt Implementation of Interim Final Rule that Dismantles Safeguards at the Board of Immigration Appeals

Washington, D.C., Feb. 26, 2026 — The American Immigration Council and a coalition of other legal groups, including the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Brooklyn Defender Services, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, HIAS, and National Immigrant Justice Center, filed a lawsuit and emergency motion today to block a new interim final rule issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) that would effectively eliminate meaningful appellate review before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges the February 6, 2026, Interim Final Rule (IFR) titled Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is set to take effect on March 9, 2026.

As detailed in the complaint, the IFR imposes sweeping changes that would eviscerate noncitizens’ right to appeal decisions in their immigration cases, including:

• Reduce the time to file most appeals from 30 days to 10 days;
• Require summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of permanent BIA members vote within 10 days to accept the case for review;
• Permit dismissal decisions before transcripts are created or records are transmitted;
• Impose simultaneous 20-day briefing schedules with extensions allowed only in narrow “exceptional circumstances”;
• Eliminate reply briefs unless specifically invited; and
• Impose rigid case completion deadlines and concentrate decision-making authority in agency leadership.

“The BIA Interim Final Rule makes a mockery of due process. In addition to taking away virtually any benefit the BIA could provide immigrants, it will wreak havoc on people with cases in immigration court or federal appellate courts,” said Emilie Raber, Senior Attorney at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights. “Litigants who are children, are detained, do not have a lawyer, have disabilities, or speak rare languages will be disproportionately harmed by this Interim Final Rule.”

“The Interim Final Rule creates a barrier to appellate review in removal proceedings and strikes at the heart of due process,” said Lucas Marquez, Director of Civil Rights & Law Reform at Brooklyn Defender Services. “The Rule will result in the deportation of people who are eligible for immigration relief — people who have valid legal claims that an immigration judge got it wrong — simply because the Board of Immigration Appeals will no longer be an avenue to fairly review their cases.”

“This interim final rule completely decimates the process to appeal a case in front of the BIA,” said Laura St. John, Legal Director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. “It will render the vast majority of immigrants unable to appeal their cases and will be particularly harmful to those who most need the recourse of an appeal process, including pro se litigants, vulnerable children, Indigenous language speakers, and people in immigration detention. It will be nearly impossible for most detained pro se individuals to submit a notice of appeal in just 10 days, and without the ability to appeal, many people will be unjustly deported back to dangerous or even life-threatening conditions.” 

“Our clients deserve a fair chance in the immigration court system,” said Stephen Brown, Director of Immigration Legal Services at HIAS.  “Without access to a meaningful appeal process, people who have fled persecution and violence could face dangerous consequences, including the risk of being sent back to a place that is not safe for them.  We are proud to join this legal challenge, and to take a stand against a policy change that will have seismic impact on the ability of legal service providers such as HIAS to support immigrants in navigating a complex and ever-changing legal system.

““It is hard to overstate the potential human toll of the changes proposed in this rule,” said Lisa Koop, director of legal services at the National Immigrant Justice Center, which is co-counsel and an organizational plaintiff in the lawsuit. “Curtailing due process in this manner guarantees that legal services providers like ours will be less able to help our clients defend against unjust deportation, and many people who would otherwise be eligible for asylum or other legal status in the United States will never have the opportunity to pursue protection under our laws.”

According to the filings, the IFR was issued without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking period and fundamentally restructures appellate review in removal proceedings. Plaintiffs argue that by requiring summary dismissal unless the full Board acts within 10 days — before transcripts are created — the rule makes meaningful review functionally impossible in most cases.

Plaintiffs argue the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Fifth Amendment, which protects people from deprivation of liberty without due process of law. They are asking the court to block the rule’s effective date and prevent implementation while the case proceeds.

The organizations are seeking a preliminary relief to prevent the rule from taking effect on March 9, 2026, and to keep it blocked while the litigation proceeds.

The case is Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR.

View the complaint here.

View the stay motion here.

The post Legal Groups Sue to Block Rule Gutting Immigration Appeals appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/WQ5RZrb
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

How to Reclaim Your Lost Canadian Citizenship Under Bill C-3

Many people around the world may now qualify for Canadian citizenship because of recent changes to Canadian law. Bill C-3 corrects past citizenship rules and allows many individuals to reclaim citizenship that was previously lost or denied.

The post How to Reclaim Your Lost Canadian Citizenship Under Bill C-3 appeared first on Canadim.

from Canadim https://ift.tt/CAtYflh
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

Dear Immigrant: The Paperwork Is the First Test

Letter 02

Re: The Paperwork Is the First Test

Dear Immigrant,

The first thing the new country will ask of you is not your skills, not your intelligence, not your character. It will ask for documents. The right documents, in the right order, submitted to the right office by the right deadline, accompanied by the right fee. This is the first test and it is not a test of anything you were trained for.

The paperwork is designed for people who already understand the system — who know which form follows which form, which office handles which application, what the difference between a received receipt and an approved receipt means for your status. If you do not already know these things, you will learn them the way immigrants always learn them: by making mistakes and by asking people who made mistakes before you.

The paperwork is not fair. It is deliberately complex in ways that advantage people with resources — people who can pay lawyers, who have time to navigate bureaucracies, who speak the administrative language of the country fluently. If you do not have these advantages, the system will be harder for you. This is not an accident. Immigration systems are designed to filter. You are being filtered. Knowing this does not make it easier, but it makes it less personal.

Find the organizations that help immigrants navigate the paperwork. They exist in most cities. They are usually underfunded and oversubscribed. Use them anyway. The people who work there have seen your situation before and they know things that you do not know yet.

Keep copies of everything. Every document you submit, every receipt you receive, every letter they send you. Keep them in a folder. Keep the folder somewhere you will not lose it. Your administrative record is your legal existence in the new country. Treat it accordingly.

The paperwork will end. The life will continue. Get through the paperwork.

From someone who learned to keep better records,
A former immigrant

dearimmigrant.com