RAICES Bulletin: BIA Holds No Right to Closing Arguments in Immigration Court Absent Showing of Due Process Violation
By RAICES Public Affairs Director Javier Hidalgo, Esq.
TL;DR On April 14, 2026, the BIA ruled in Matter of A-M-Z-F that parties in Immigration Court possess no inherent right to closing arguments. To successfully challenge the denial of a closing statement, a party must prove that the omission resulted in a due process violation by demonstrating actual prejudice—meaning the argument would have likely changed the case's outcome.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: In the April 14, 2026 BIA decision in the Matter of A-M-Z-F, the BIA held that Parties in Immigration Court have no right to give a closing argument unless they show that denying it would violate due process.
Rationale: The Board emphasized that Immigration Judges maintain broad statutory and regulatory authority to control the flow and requirements of a fair hearing. While some Sixth Circuit dicta hint that denying statements could raise due process concerns, the BIA maintains no existing case law has found a violation based solely on the absence of a closing argument. Although the EOIR Practice Manual advises parties to be prepared for closing statements, the BIA clarified that this does not create a legally binding requirement for the court to hear them. In Matter of A-M-Z-F, the Board found there was no prejudice because the closing would not have changed the Immigration Judge’s findings.
RAICES Impact: Legal representatives must now prepare for the possibility that an IJ may block closing arguments entirely. Attorneys will need to adjust their hearing strategies to ensure all critical points are integrated into the record earlier in the proceedings. This ruling may lead to a rise in appeals centered stemming from disputes as to whether a sufficient showing of prejudice was made.
Community Impact: This decision is particularly detrimental to asylum seekers without legal counsel. While attorneys can articulate technical arguments regarding "prejudice" and "due process," unrepresented individuals will likely struggle to meet these high legal bars when their arguments are cut short.
Related Legal Battles: There is currently no direct legal challenge pending against this specific holding, but watch this space.
Broader Immigration Strategy: It is vital for practitioners to object formally and preserve these issues on the record to provide a foundation for future challenges. A party should still request a closing argument; however, it is no longer a guaranteed right. Parties and their legal representatives should look to articulate how not being able to make closing arguments prejudiced them by potentially affecting the outcome of their case.
