A coalition led by the American Immigration Council filed suit in federal court on 26 February 2026 to stop an Interim Final Rule (IFR) issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review that overhauls appellate procedures at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The IFR, slated to take effect on 9 March, drastically shortens briefing schedules, limits oral argument, restricts the BIA’s ability to remand cases, and permits single-member summary dismissals in a wider range of circumstances.(americanimmigrationcouncil.org)
Plaintiffs argue the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing notice-and-comment rule-making and undermines due-process protections for asylum seekers, students and employment-based immigrants alike. They fear that hurried decisions at the BIA will increase erroneous removals and create uncertainty for employers sponsoring foreign talent.
From a global-mobility perspective, faster but less transparent appellate adjudications could shorten the window foreign employees have to remain work-authorised while their cases are on appeal, complicating I-9 compliance and travel planning. Companies that rely on intracompany transferees or extend assignments through cancellation of removal or adjustment applications should track affected cases closely.
![Advocacy groups sue to block new rule that curtails appeals at the Board of Immigration Appeals]()
For employers or individuals suddenly needing to explore alternative visa options, VisaHQ can provide rapid, end-to-end support—from assessing eligibility to facilitating embassy appointments—through its intuitive platform (https://www.visahq.com/united-states/). Leveraging such services can help mitigate disruptions if the new BIA timelines curtail a worker’s U.S. status.
If the court grants a temporary restraining order, the IFR’s implementation would pause, preserving the status quo. Otherwise, immigration counsel expect a surge of swift BIA decisions, forcing petitioners into costly federal-court litigation.
Employers should coordinate with counsel to identify employees with matters pending before the BIA and prepare contingency plans, including alternative visa strategies or remote-work arrangements outside the United States if appeals are denied on accelerated timelines.
Plaintiffs argue the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing notice-and-comment rule-making and undermines due-process protections for asylum seekers, students and employment-based immigrants alike. They fear that hurried decisions at the BIA will increase erroneous removals and create uncertainty for employers sponsoring foreign talent.
From a global-mobility perspective, faster but less transparent appellate adjudications could shorten the window foreign employees have to remain work-authorised while their cases are on appeal, complicating I-9 compliance and travel planning. Companies that rely on intracompany transferees or extend assignments through cancellation of removal or adjustment applications should track affected cases closely.
For employers or individuals suddenly needing to explore alternative visa options, VisaHQ can provide rapid, end-to-end support—from assessing eligibility to facilitating embassy appointments—through its intuitive platform (https://www.visahq.com/united-states/). Leveraging such services can help mitigate disruptions if the new BIA timelines curtail a worker’s U.S. status.
If the court grants a temporary restraining order, the IFR’s implementation would pause, preserving the status quo. Otherwise, immigration counsel expect a surge of swift BIA decisions, forcing petitioners into costly federal-court litigation.
Employers should coordinate with counsel to identify employees with matters pending before the BIA and prepare contingency plans, including alternative visa strategies or remote-work arrangements outside the United States if appeals are denied on accelerated timelines.
