Board of Immigration Appeals Restructured Under New EOIR Rule
The landscape of U.S. immigration policy and adjudication is undergoing significant and rapid changes. These changes are driven by executive action, administrative rulemaking, and judicial intervention. These developments affect everything from the top-level appellate structure, including the actions of the Board of Immigration Appeals. They also impact the processing of individual cases, creating a complex and often contradictory environment for applicants and legal practitioners.
Changes to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
In a major administrative shift, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has issued an interim final rule (IFR). This rule immediately reduces the size of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) from 28 to 15 members. This move follows shortly after the BIA was expanded. It is justified by the Department of Justice as a way to “increase consistency” and “facilitate an efficient en banc process.” However, critics, including organizations like the National Immigration Project, argue against it. They believe this reduction in capacity is arbitrary and will not help address the backlog of cases. Instead, it may lead to more rubber-stamping decisions without proper legal reasoning. This action is seen by some as a politically motivated attempt to remove immigration judges appointed under a previous administration.
Defining “Particular Social Group” in Asylum Law
In a separate development, the BIA’s decision in Matter of O–A–R–G–, et al., has introduced a critical clarification on asylum claims based on a “former” status. The decision specifies that for asylum on the basis of being a member of a “particular social group” (PSG), applicants must demonstrate motivation by their current status as a former group member. It can’t be retribution for past actions taken while in that group. The case involved a former Colombian police officer. The BIA concluded that the harm he feared was based on past conduct as a police officer, not current status as a former officer. This crucial distinction impacts many claims. Particularly, those by former military, law enforcement, or government employees seeking protection. It places a higher burden on applicants to show a clear nexus between their immutable “former” status and the persecution they fear.
Green Card Processing and Judicial Oversight
On the processing front, recent media reports have indicated a concerning halt in the processing of green card applications for asylees and refugees by USCIS. The government has cited the need for “additional screening and vetting.” This move has created significant uncertainty and delay for an already vulnerable population. This administrative pause has put thousands of applications in limbo, creating significant hardship for those already granted protection in the United States.
This administrative action is in stark contrast to a recent federal court order in Seattle. This order pushed back against a broader government policy to suspend refugee processing. A federal judge has explicitly told the Trump Administration it must follow through on legal obligations to admit approved refugees. To ensure compliance, the court has mandated the government provide a detailed plan with deadlines and updates. This judicial oversight checks executive power and highlights the judiciary’s role alongside the Board of Immigration Appeals. It ensures the government’s adherence to its laws and international commitments.
