ILAP Public Comment: Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted via regulations.gov
Jamee E. Comans
Acting Assistant Director
Office of Policy
Executive Office for Immigration Review
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2500
Falls Church, VA 22041
RE: Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals (Docket No. EOIR-26-AB37; RIN 1125-AB37)
Dear Assistant Director Comans,
The Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, (ILAP), respectfully submits the following comments regarding the interim final rule (IFR), Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals (Docket No. EOIR-26-AB37; RIN 1125-AB37). We recommend the rule be rescinded in its entirety as it severely undermines access to due process in the U.S. immigration system without legitimate justification, with particularly harmful impacts on the most vulnerable people navigating the system.
I. About ILAP and Interest in Proposed Changes:
ILAP is Maine’s only statewide immigration legal services organization, serving low-income people across the state who would otherwise not have access to immigration legal services. ILAP’s clients include asylum seekers, vulnerable children and young people, survivors of trafficking, domestic violence, and other serious crimes, Temporary Protected Status applicants, and more. Through our practice over the last 30 years, which has included appeals work, ILAP has developed deep understanding and expertise in the challenges Maine’s noncitizen residents face in navigating the U.S. immigration system as they seek long-term stability and security.
II. Meaningful Appeals Processes Are Indispensable to a Democratic System Rooted in Rule of Law:
Meaningful and accessible appeals processes are fundamental to a democratic system, ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of individual decision makers, that people have the maximum opportunity to fully present their cases and be heard, and that society adheres to the rule of law. The immigration system is already rife with issues that diminish access to due process and justice. This includes that no one in the system is guaranteed an attorney at any point and that the court system sits within the Department of Justice and is not independent from political winds. Within this system, the stakes could not be higher. Outcomes of immigration cases determine whether families can stay together and whether people can live in peace and safety or if they will be returned to potentially life-threatening circumstances.
In the past at ILAP, successful appeals have resulted in overturning wrong outcomes for our clients, upholding the law, and protecting them from deportation to life-threatening circumstances. Protection secured through the appeals process – and a more just immigration system generally – allows Maine residents to put down roots, join the workforce or start businesses, become consumers in our economy, and otherwise make meaningful contributions to our state.
III. The Interim Final Rule Severely Undermines Access to Due Process in the U.S. Immigration System
The IFR will severely undermine access to due process for those navigating the U.S. immigration system, including by:
Reducing the deadline for filing most BIA appeals from 30 days to 10 days. A 30-day deadline to prepare an appeal is already a tight timeline and can be insurmountable for many people navigating the system. Preparing an appeal requires legal research and analysis, drafting an appeal identifying specific errors of fact and law, gathering fees (now more than $1,000) or applying for a fee waiver, securing certified English language translation for documents as applicable, making copies, and filing. Being required to complete these steps, and more, within 10 days, effectively eliminates the appeals process.
Putting in place a policy of summary dismissal without examination of a case’s merits. The IFR establishes policy that would make summary dismissal without consideration of the merits the default for an appealed case, stating this would create space for the Board to examine “novel” issues. A meaningful appeals process is not about “novel” issues, it is about ensuring that errors made by immigration judges are corrected and more just outcomes are delivered. The foreseeable result of this provision is that incorrectly decided cases will go unexamined, U.S. law will not be upheld, and individual human beings will face potentially dire consequences.
Requiring simultaneous briefing submitted within 20 days in the rare instances the BIA considers an appeal. In the rare situations the BIA will consider a case on the merits under this IFR, parties would be required to submit briefs simultaneously. This means that noncitizens will not be notified of all the issues raised by Department of Homeland Security attorneys and will not be given meaningful opportunity to address them.
Across the board, the greatest impacts will be felt by people in the most vulnerable positions including people in detention, people who do not have an attorney or cannot quickly hire counsel or otherwise access legal services, people facing language barriers, people who do not have their basic human needs met, and others without the significant resources required to quickly mount an appeal.
IV. Immigration Legal Services Organizations Like ILAP Would Be Hampered in Assisting Vulnerable, Pro Se Clients:
In Maine, ILAP is the only immigration legal services organization of its kind. Because of our limited capacity to assist everyone in Maine in need of immigration legal help, an important part of ILAP’s current work involves referring people to high quality, private immigration attorneys, including for appeals cases. A 10-day deadline would make it impossible for ILAP to analyze an intake request and make referrals in time. This is especially true for a pro se applicant who is already trying to navigate the system on their own. It takes time to understand the current position of a case, research immigration legal help in Maine, and reach out to ILAP. The outcomes in Maine – and similarly situated immigration legal services deserts – would be people who are entitled to protection under our laws not receiving it.
V. This Interim Final Rule is Part of the Current Administration’s Political, Mass Deportation Agenda and is Without Legitimate Justification:
The interim final rule would effectively eliminate an appeals process in the immigration court system in nearly all cases. The rule is premised on arguments of “efficiency” yet falls into the context of the administration’s other actions which have diminished the system’s capacity in pursuit of mass deportation. These include the mass firings of immigration judges,¹ raising appeals fees to more than $1,000,² and daily, indiscriminate arrest quotas³ overwhelming the system.
Meaningful reforms towards a more efficient immigration system would not compromise access to due process or undermine democratic values. They would, at a minimum, include adequately funding the system by hiring sufficient staff at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and judges for the courts while investing in proper training to ensure decisions are consistent with the law.
VI. Conclusion:
Given its illegitimate premise, impact on access to due process, harm to vulnerable populations, impact on legal services organizations, and overall undermining of a democratic system built on rule of law, the IFR should be withdrawn in its entirety. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please contact ILAP’s Policy Director, Lisa Parisio, at lparisio@ilapmaine.org for any questions or additional information.
Sincerely,
Susan Roche
Executive Director
Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project
489 Congress Street, 3rd Floor
Portland, ME 04101
¹ The Trump administration fired nearly 100 immigration judges in 2025. What's next?, NPR (Jan. 10, 2026), https://www.npr.org/2026/01/10/nx-s1-5672386/the-trump-administration-fired-nearly-100-immigration-judges-in-2025-whats-next.
² What’s in the Big Beautiful Bill? Immigration and Border Security Unpacked, American Immigration Council (July 14, 2025), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/big-beautiful-bill-immigration-border-security/.
³ For e.g., ICE agents reveal daily arrest quotas and surveillance app in rare court testimony, The Guardian (March 13, 2026), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/13/ice-agent-court-testimony-oregon.