On September 29, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedent decision in Matter of G-R-B-, 30 I&N Dec. 102 (BIA 2026). The decision holds that an Immigration Judge (IJ) may pretermit asylum claims and withholding of removal without a motion from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The Facts
The respondent is a Mexican national who sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He feared harm from private actors in his home country because of his race and particular social group. The immigration judge pretermitted the application on May 5, 2026 without holding an evidentiary hearing.
The IJ found that the respondent failed to show any past persecution on account of his race. There was no evidence presented to show that he would be persecuted or tortured if returned to Mexico. The IJ found that his particular social group was not cognizable and his claim was filed outside of the one-year time bar. The respondent did not adequately brief this issue, so it was deemed waived.
The Board’s Reasoning
The Respondent claimed that the judge should have built more of a record out before pretermitting his case. The Board disagreed, citing its 2025 decision in Matter of H-A-A-V-, which held that no evidentiary hearing is required when an application does not establish a prima facie claim. The respondent did not identify any overlooked evidence.
His second argument was procedural, asserting that pretermission is only appropriate when DHS requests it. The Board rejected this, as it is the applicant’s job to prove that they meet the requirements under the INA. The Supreme Court has stated that it is permissible to skip a hearing if there is no real and substantial question of fact. under INA § 240(c)(4), and the Supreme Court has recognized that an agency may forgo a hearing when no genuine and substantial factual issue remains. Immigration Judges have broad discretion in managing proceedings.
The Board dismissed the appeal.
What This Means for Asylum Seekers
Along with H-A-A-V-, this decision confirms that the written application may be the applicant’s only opportunity. If the I-589 and supporting evidence do not establish each element of the claim on their face, a judge may end the case before testimony, and the government is not required to raise the issue.
The applicant should file a declaration with his or her application that goes into detail about why they fear harm. They should also explain what the persecution has to do with protected ground and provide country conditions and corroborating evidence that pertain to their case. Anyone appealing a pretermission should address every ground relied on by the judge. Issues not developed on appeal will likely be deemed waived, as in this case.
If you are in removal proceedings or preparing an asylum application, our attorneys at ILBSG can assist you in evaluating your claim and building a comprehensive record from the outset. Please contact our office to schedule a consultation.
As always, ILBSG actively monitors ongoing U.S. immigration news. If you have questions about any U.S. immigration related issue, contact us. Working with an experienced attorney ensures you get the right advice based on the most recent laws. In an ever-evolving immigration policy landscape, it’s particularly critical you get the right advice.