Legal services organizations have filed a lawsuit to block a new immigration appeals rule that they argue undermines due process and limits noncitizens’ rights to appeal decisions.
Washington, D.C., Feb. 26, 2026 — A coalition of legal services organizations, including the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Brooklyn Defender Services, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, HIAS, the American Immigration Council, and the National Immigrant Justice Center, has filed a lawsuit seeking to halt the implementation of a new interim final rule issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). This rule, which is set to take effect on March 9, 2026, is criticized for effectively eliminating meaningful appellate review before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and challenges the February 6, 2026, Interim Final Rule (IFR) titled “Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals.” The plaintiffs argue that the IFR imposes sweeping changes that significantly undermine noncitizens’ rights to appeal decisions in their immigration cases.
Among the key provisions of the IFR are a reduction in the time to file most appeals from 30 days to just 10 days, a requirement for summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of permanent BIA members vote to accept the case for review within 10 days, and the ability to dismiss cases before transcripts are created or records are transmitted. The rule also imposes strict 20-day briefing schedules, allows extensions only in narrow circumstances, and eliminates reply briefs unless specifically invited.
Emilie Raber, Senior Attorney at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, expressed concern about the implications of the IFR, stating, “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.” Raber highlighted that vulnerable populations, including children, detained individuals, those without legal representation, and speakers of rare languages, will be disproportionately affected by these changes.
Lucas Marquez, Director of Civil Rights & Law Reform at Brooklyn Defender Services, echoed these sentiments, stating, “The Interim Final Rule creates a barrier to appellate review in removal proceedings and strikes at the heart of due process. This rule will result in the deportation of individuals who are eligible for immigration relief, as the BIA will no longer serve as a fair avenue for reviewing their cases.”
Laura St. John, Legal Director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, noted the detrimental impact of the rule on the ability to appeal cases, particularly for those who need it most. “It will render the vast majority of immigrants unable to appeal their cases and will be particularly harmful to pro se litigants, vulnerable children, Indigenous language speakers, and individuals in immigration detention,” she said. St. John emphasized that the 10-day window for filing appeals would be nearly impossible for most detained pro se individuals, potentially leading to unjust deportations.
Stephen Brown, Director of Immigration Legal Services at HIAS, stressed the importance of a fair immigration court system, stating, “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.” He expressed pride in joining the legal challenge against what he described as a policy change with far-reaching negative implications for immigrants.
Lisa Koop, Director of Legal Services at the National Immigrant Justice Center, highlighted the potential human toll of the proposed changes, stating, “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.” Koop warned that many individuals who would otherwise qualify for asylum or other legal status in the United States might lose their opportunity for protection under the law.
Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, criticized the administration’s approach, stating, “The Trump-Vance administration is gaming the immigration appeals system in an unlawful effort to eliminate meaningful review and fast-track deportations.” Perryman questioned the motives behind the administration’s actions, asking, “What is this administration afraid of? Why are they working so hard to deny people their rights, whether it’s due process or rights to an appeal?”
Michelle Lapointe, Legal Director at the American Immigration Council, emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating, “Immigration courts make life-and-death decisions. Stripping away the possibility to meaningfully appeal a court decision transforms the appeals process into a sham. It puts people at risk of wrongful and even lethal deportation.”
The plaintiffs argue that the IFR violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from deprivation of liberty without due process of law. They are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the rule from taking effect while the litigation is ongoing.
The case is titled Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR. The organizations involved are asking the court to block the rule’s effective date and prevent its implementation during the legal proceedings.
For more information, view the complaint and stay motion related to this case.
According to American Immigration Council.