RAICES Bulletin: DOJ Bars Immigration Judges From Denying Motions to Pretermit
By RAICES Public Affairs Director Javier Hidalgo, Esq.
TL;DR In Matter of T-A-G-, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that an Immigration Judge (IJ) cannot deny a DHS motion to pretermit an asylum application simply because the applicant has a pending application for collateral relief. This decision requires judges to issue removal orders before alternative legal pathways can be fully processed.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: In Matter of T-A-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 2026), the BIA held that an IJ cannot deny a DHS motion to pretermit an asylum application simply because the applicant has a pending application for collateral relief.
Rationale: In a departure from long-standing practice, the BIA reasoned that asylum applications must be evaluated strictly on their own merits and deficiencies, and without consideration for any pending collateral outside the IJ's jurisdiction. Per the BIA, if removability is established and no valid court relief is available, the IJ must issue a removal order rather than pausing the case.
RAICES Impact: This impacts procedural strategies when defending asylum seekers with multiple potential pathways to legal status. For example, legal advocates can no longer rely on a pending family-based petition to shield clients from DHS pretermission motions. Legal teams should anticipate needing complex asylum cases and consider strategies for opposing motions to pretermit where DHS is often leveraging third country Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs).
Community Impact: For the immigrant community, this decision eliminated a critical strategy to premature deportations. Asylum seekers trying to secure family visas must now defend their asylum claims against aggressive DHS pretermission motions on an expedited timeline. This procedural shift raises the likelihood that many noncitizens will be deported to third countries under ACAs before their legitimate, alternative pathways to legal status are ever fully processed.
Related Legal Battles: This decision operates alongside a wave of recent 2026 BIA rulings that restrict relief and expedite deportations. The BIA recently placed intense procedural restrictions on stays of removal in cases like Matter of Herrera-Nunez. Likewise, practitioners will have to contend with recent limitations on challenges to ACA removals in Matter of A-C-M-. Together, these administrative overhauls snuck into BIA decisions strip away the procedural flexibility and fairness.
Broader Immigration Strategy: Matter of T-A-G- reflects the current administration's broader anti-immigration agenda, which heavily weaponizes "efficiency" to deny due process. The BIA’s lack of independence is on full display. By forcing immediate rulings on pretermission motions and barring consideration of collateral relief, the administration dismantles a noncitizen's ability to have alternative legal options recognized. Combined with ACAs, abbreviated appeal windows, and restricted administrative closures, this strategy deliberately fast-tracks deportations and minimizes the procedural guardrails to prevent DHS from wrongfully removing noncitizens who qualify for legal protections or benefits.
