Legal services organizations have filed a lawsuit to block a new immigration appeals rule that they argue undermines judicial review and due process for noncitizens.
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 aimed at halting the implementation of a new interim final rule (IFR) issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The rule, which is set to take effect on March 9, 2026, is said to effectively eliminate 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 IFR titled “Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals,” which was introduced on February 6, 2026. The plaintiffs argue that the rule imposes sweeping changes that undermine noncitizens’ rights to appeal decisions in their immigration cases.
Key provisions of the IFR include 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 within 10 days, and the ability to dismiss cases before transcripts are created or records are transmitted. Additionally, the rule imposes simultaneous 20-day briefing schedules with limited extensions, eliminates reply briefs unless invited, and concentrates decision-making authority in agency leadership.
Emilie Raber, Senior Attorney at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, criticized 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 emphasized that vulnerable populations, including children, detained individuals, those without legal representation, and speakers of rare languages, will be disproportionately affected by the changes.
Lucas Marquez, Director of Civil Rights & Law Reform at Brooklyn Defender Services, echoed these concerns, asserting that the IFR creates barriers to appellate review in removal proceedings and undermines due process. “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,” he said.
Laura St. John, Legal Director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, described the IFR as a decimation of the appeals process, particularly harmful to those who need it most. “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,” she stated. St. John warned that the new timeline would make it nearly impossible for most detained individuals to submit a notice of appeal within the shortened 10-day window, risking unjust deportations to dangerous conditions.
Stephen Brown, Director of Immigration Legal Services at HIAS, emphasized the importance of a fair immigration court system. “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 said. Brown expressed pride in joining the legal challenge against the IFR, highlighting its potential seismic impact on legal service providers supporting immigrants.
Lisa Koop, Director of Legal Services at the National Immigrant Justice Center, noted the potential human toll of the proposed changes. “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,” she said. Koop added that many individuals who would otherwise be eligible for asylum or legal status in the United States may never have the opportunity to pursue 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. What is this administration afraid of? Why are they working so hard to deny people their rights?” Perryman highlighted the life-and-death stakes involved in many of these cases, asserting that the changes to the appeals process are an attempt to deny justice.
Michelle Lapointe, Legal Director at the American Immigration Council, expressed concern over the implications of the IFR. “Immigration courts make life-and-death decisions. Stripping away the possibility to meaningfully appeal a court decision transforms the appeals process into a sham,” she said, warning that it could lead to wrongful deportations.
The plaintiffs argue that the IFR was issued without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking period and fundamentally restructures appellate review in removal proceedings. They contend that the requirement for summary dismissal unless the full Board acts within 10 days — before transcripts are created — makes meaningful review functionally impossible in most cases. The lawsuit claims that the rule 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.
The organizations are seeking 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 titled Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR.
According to American Immigration Council, the outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the rights of noncitizens and the integrity of the immigration appeals process.