RAICES Bulletin: BIA—Harsh Consequences for Nonpayment of Annual Asylum Fees
By RAICES Public Affairs Director Javier Hidalgo, Esq.
TL;DR The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled that failing to pay the annual fee for a pending asylum case will result in an immigration court pretermitting or deeming a claim abandoned. However, the Board clarified this requirement and penalties do not apply to statutory withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims filed on the same application.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: In its July 24, 2026, Matter of L-F-R- (BIA 2026), the Board held that failing to pay annual asylum fee in a pending case should lead an immigration court to pretermit or deem an asylum claim abandoned. The Board also found that the fee requirement and penalties do not apply to statutory withholding of removal or CAT protection claims filed on the same form.
Rationale: The 2025 Reconciliation Bill, OBBBA, requires both an initial filing fee and an annual fee for asylum applications, including those filed in immigration court. The BIA reasons that the OBBBA’s language that the Attorney General “shall require the payment of a fee,” should lead immigration judges to dismiss asylum claims for any nonpayment. However, the BIA also found that the OBBBA’s plain language is limited to asylum and this requirement and penalty do not extend to withholding of removal or CAT protection claims on the same application.
RAICES Impact: Attorneys should ensure that clients understand the need to meet payment deadlines established by Immigration Judges. Legal representatives should also consider including colorable claims for withholding of removal and CAT protections. However, practitioners should also note the BIA’s recent decision in Matter of P-A-C-, (BIA 2026), where it held that granting withholding of removal can justify denying asylum. Practitioners should also monitor the progress of federal litigation challenging this fee.
Community Impact: Many asylum seekers are unaware that this requirement exists. Technical issues can also prevent timely payment. The result of this ruling will likely be an increase in valid claims never being heard in court, and the deportation of individuals who would have legally deserved asylum protection will be removed because of financial barriers they may not have been aware of. This will increase confusion and distrust in the immigration court system.
Related Legal Battles: This annual fee has sparked significant litigation. In ASAP v. EOIR, ASAP argued that retroactively applying the fee caused widespread confusion and unjust dismissals. After a temporary preliminary injunction paused the fee from October 2025 to February 2026, a federal judge allowed EOIR and USCIS to resume the practice while litigation continues. A separate litigation seeks to challenge the USCIS annual asylum fee.
Broader Immigration Strategy: This economic gatekeeping operates alongside other bureaucratic hurdles designed to dismantle access to lawful immigration pathways, force application abandonments, and streamline removals under the guise of statutory compliance. This decision further complicates asylum proceedings and is likely to dissuade many asylum seekers from trusting the immigration court process. It is particularly harmful for the BIA to emphasize such harsh consequences while the legality of the fee continues to be challenged in federal court.
