Legal services organizations have filed a lawsuit to block a new immigration appeals rule that they argue undermines due process and eliminates meaningful judicial review 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 seeking to halt 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 designed to significantly alter the appellate review process 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 issued on February 6, 2026. The plaintiffs argue that the rule undermines the rights of noncitizens to appeal decisions in their immigration cases, effectively dismantling existing safeguards.
Key provisions of the IFR include a reduction in the time allowed 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. The rule also imposes simultaneous 20-day briefing schedules with limited extensions and eliminates the opportunity for reply briefs unless specifically invited.
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.” She emphasized that vulnerable populations, including children, detained individuals, and those without legal representation, will be disproportionately affected by the changes.
Lucas Marquez, Director of Civil Rights & Law Reform at Brooklyn Defender Services, echoed these concerns, stating, “The Interim Final Rule creates a barrier to appellate review in removal proceedings and strikes at the heart of 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.”
Laura St. John, Legal Director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, described the rule as a significant setback for immigrants, saying, “This interim final rule completely decimates the process to appeal a case in front of the BIA. 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.”
Stephen Brown, Director of Immigration Legal Services at HIAS, emphasized the importance of a fair appeals process, stating, “Our clients deserve a fair chance in the 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.”
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, 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.”
Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, criticized the administration’s approach, saying, “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, whether it’s due process or rights to an appeal?”
Michelle Lapointe, Legal Director at the American Immigration Council, warned of the implications of the rule, stating, “Immigration courts make life-and-death decisions. Stripping away the possibility to meaningfully appeal a court decision, while charging over $1,000 for the privilege, 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. They are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the rule from taking effect while the litigation proceeds.
The case is officially titled Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR. The organizations involved are committed to fighting for the rights of immigrants and ensuring that due process is upheld in the immigration system.
According to the filings, the IFR was issued without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking period and fundamentally restructures appellate review in removal proceedings. The plaintiffs argue that the rule makes meaningful review functionally impossible in most cases.
As the legal challenge unfolds, the organizations are calling for immediate action to protect the rights of noncitizens and ensure that the immigration appeals process remains fair and accessible.