EOIR's new BIA appeals rule was stopped before it took effect. On March 8, 2026, less than 24 hours before the rule's March 9 effective date, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss set aside the three provisions that mattered most: the 10-day appeal deadline, the presumption of summary dismissal, and the rule deeming issues waived if they were not raised in the Notice of Appeal. Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR.
On February 20, I wrote that EOIR planned to cut the filing window from 30 days to 10 and make BIA merits review discretionary. Judge Moss's March 8 ruling changes that rule. The opinion blocks those core changes before they could take effect and sends the matter back to EOIR, while leaving several narrower procedural changes in place. The Immigration Appeal Process is Changing and Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR.
Source note: Unless otherwise noted, EOIR and BIA data points below come from the HammondLaw Immigration Law Research Database analytics page and the HammondLaw Immigration Law Research Database's analysis of the current Board.
The court set aside the core appeal changes
Judge Moss treated the plaintiffs' notice-and-comment challenge as ripe for summary judgment and held that EOIR could not use the APA's procedural-rule exception to impose the core appellate changes without public notice and comment. He grouped the 10-day deadline, the waiver rule, and the new summary-dismissal regime together because they "work hand-in-glove": the respondent would have ten days to identify every issue, file the appeal, and persuade a Board member to refer the case to the full Board, which would then have ten days to vote to hear it. Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR.
The court concluded that these provisions would sharply alter the interests at stake in removal cases and would likely deny meaningful administrative review in the ordinary case. The opinion points to EOIR's own estimate of a 202,946-appeal backlog and credits an amicus explanation that the Board processes roughly 400 appeals a day. In that setting, the judge concluded, the overwhelming majority of appeals would receive no meaningful consideration before being dismissed. Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR.
As of March 9, EOIR cannot replace the ordinary BIA appeal structure with a system in which most appeals are dismissed unless a majority of the full Board votes within ten days to accept them. EOIR also cannot enforce the interim final rule's 10-day filing deadline or its rule that issues omitted from the Notice of Appeal are waived. Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR and Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Several briefing and record rules are still in play
The court did not set aside every part of the interim final rule. It allowed several provisions to remain in place because it viewed them as at least arguably procedural and because the plaintiffs did not show the kind of imminent irreparable harm needed for emergency relief. Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR.
EOIR may still move forward with the rule's tighter merits-briefing procedures: simultaneous briefing within 20 days after the Board sets a schedule, reply briefs only if the Board invites or orders them, and extensions only in exceptional circumstances. The court also declined, at this stage, to invalidate the rule's transcript and record-preparation changes and its tighter internal deadlines for Board leadership. Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR and Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Much of the February rule still matters. Its most consequential front-end changes, the ones that would have made BIA review largely discretionary and compressed the notice of appeal into something closer to a merits brief, were blocked before the rule's March 9 effective date. The later-stage briefing and record rules remain part of the litigation. Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR.
Why this decision matters beyond one filing deadline
EOIR argued that the rule could bypass normal notice-and-comment procedures because it merely dealt with agency procedure and because faster removals would support the government's foreign-affairs objectives. Judge Moss rejected both arguments. He held that the core provisions were too consequential to be treated as mere housekeeping and that domestic rules governing BIA appeals do not clearly and directly involve the conduct of international relations. Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR.
The court expressly did not decide the plaintiffs' INA and due process claims. It decided the APA notice-and-comment issue. If DOJ wants to revive the 10-day deadline, the waiver rule, and the presumption of summary dismissal, it will likely need to go through notice and comment first and then defend the policy on a fuller record. That reading follows from the opinion's APA holding and its remand to EOIR. Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR.
The pressure on respondents is still there
This decision interrupts a major shift in immigration appellate practice. The shift itself is still underway. The BIA entered 2026 with an enormous pending-appeal backlog, and the broader institutional changes I wrote about in February remain. EOIR has cut the Board from 28 members to 15, issued a rapid run of precedential decisions, and continued pushing faster case processing across the system. The HammondLaw Immigration Law Research Database analytics page, the HammondLaw Immigration Law Research Database's analysis of the current Board, and The Immigration Appeal Process is Changing track that shift.
It also arrives days after the Board's precedential decision in Matter of Ibarra-Vega, which sharply narrowed administrative closure. Pressure on respondents remains high, and one especially aggressive appellate shortcut has been stopped in federal court. The BIA Just Gutted Administrative Closure. Hundreds of Thousands of Cases Could Reopen.
Appeals still require early planning
If you have an immigration judge decision coming and are thinking about an appeal, the March 8 ruling preserves the old default rules for the core filing step. The 10-day deadline was blocked, the summary-dismissal regime was blocked, and the waiver provision tied to the Notice of Appeal was blocked. This is still active litigation, though, and the remaining procedural changes mean the briefing phase may move faster than lawyers and respondents expected even a month ago. Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR and Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Appeal deadlines in immigration court are unforgiving even when the formal deadline is 30 days, and the broader appellate landscape is still shifting. If you may need to appeal a removal order, or if your case could move from the BIA to the court of appeals, the time to map that strategy is before the decision comes down, not after it.
If you need advice about a possible BIA appeal, a petition for review, or how this ruling affects a pending removal case, schedule a consultation.
Chris Hammond is a Houston immigration attorney focused on deportation defense, asylum, and immigration appeals.