EOIR Rescinds Three Policy Memos

Why this matters for asylum and continuance practice

In practical terms, rescinding PM 19-05 and PM 21-06 touches core asylum adjudication protocols (for example, procedures for referrals, timetables, and processing priorities), and cancelling PM 21-13 affects continuance standards and expectation management for filing evidence and hearing scheduling. Consequently, advocates should expect local field variation: some immigration courts may revert to earlier internal procedures, while others will await explicit direction from EOIR leadership. Moreover, the Director has indicated a broader review of standing policy memos, so additional changes could follow. 

Immediate practical effects you may see

• Increased uncertainty on continuance requests and shorter or longer filing windows depending on the judge and the field office.
• Potential re-prioritization of asylum docket handling — e.g., some asylum referrals may be handled differently while EOIR finalizes new guidance.
• Possibility of renewed or differing local practices for admitting or excluding evidence previously governed by the rescinded PMs.

What counsel should do now — a short checklist

Act quickly and deliberately to preserve client positions and procedural rights:

1. Flag active asylum cases: Identify clients whose cases were being handled under PM 19-05/21-06/21-13 procedures and prioritize them for immediate attention.
2. Confirm upcoming deadlines and hearings: Check the court calendar and any pending filing deadlines; don’t assume previous continuance timeframes remain in force.
3. File protective motions: When in doubt, file motions to continue, motions to admit late evidence, or narrowly tailored emergency requests so the record preserves arguments about prejudice or fairness.
4. Document prejudice: If a client’s case would be harmed by a sudden procedural shift (for example, reduced time to obtain evidence or travel records), memorialize that harm in the record and request relief in writing.
5. Keep communications with clients current: Explain that rescissions create near-term uncertainty and advise clients to maintain contact information, attend all scheduled hearings, and bring original documentation to court. 

How to argue for continuances or admissions of evidence now

Because practices will differ by presiding judge and field office, counsel should be prepared to: (1) show good cause for continuances with concrete, time-stamped evidence of attempts to gather documents; (2) argue that admitting late evidence is necessary to avoid prejudice and promote accuracy; and (3) cite due-process concerns if the abrupt policy change shortens reasonable notice periods. Therefore, well-documented, narrowly targeted motions remain the best protection against procedural surprise.

Local variation — what to expect by field office

EOIR rescissions often result in uneven implementation. Some immigration courts will rapidly adopt interim local practices; others will wait for written EOIR instructions. Consequently, communicate with local bar associations, court clerks, and colleague networks to learn how a particular court is applying the rescission and what informal practices judges may adopt. This local intelligence will be essential for realistic case planning.

Copy-pasteable preservation checklist (for the record)

• Preserve any communications from EOIR or the court about scheduling changes. Save emailed notices and calendar entries.
• Obtain and file affidavits showing attempts to obtain evidence (medical records, identity documents, country-condition materials) if timeframes are shortened.
• File a protective motion to continue or, if necessary, emergency relief (e.g., motion to reopen for newly discovered evidence) so the record shows prejudice if relief is later denied.

FAQ — short answers you can copy into client letters

Which memoranda were rescinded?

EOIR cancelled Policy Memorandum PM 19-05 (Asylum adjudication guidance), PM 21-06 (Asylum Processing), and PM 21-13 (Continuances). These are listed on EOIR/DOJ’s rescinded memoranda list. 

Does rescission change substantive asylum law?

No. Rescinding policy memoranda changes EOIR administrative guidance and procedures, but it does not change statutory asylum law or immigration regulations set by Congress. However, procedural changes can materially affect how cases are processed and evidence is admitted.

Will EOIR issue replacement guidance?

EOIR leadership has signaled a review of standing policy memos; therefore, expect replacement or revised memoranda over time. Meanwhile, local practice will likely determine immediate outcomes. Stay tuned to EOIR’s official pages and local court bulletins.