The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has clarified that an Immigration Judge (IJ) may pretermit an application for asylum and withholding of removal without a motion from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
In Matter of G-R-B-, 30 I&N Dec. 102 (BIA 2026), decided on September 29, 2026, the BIA affirmed an Immigration Judge’s decision to pretermit the respondent’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal after determining that the respondent had not established prima facie eligibility for the requested protection.
BIA Decision in Matter of G-R-B-
The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed an Immigration Judge’s May 5, 2026 decision pretermitting his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
The respondent claimed that he feared harm from private actors in Mexico based on his race and membership in a particular social group. However, the Immigration Judge determined that the applications did not establish prima facie claims for the requested forms of relief. The BIA affirmed that determination.
The BIA noted that the respondent had not alleged prior harm rising to the level of persecution based on race. He also did not identify specific evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of future persecution based on race. Similarly, he did not identify past torture or evidence indicating that he was likely to face torture in the future.
Immigration Judges May Pretermit Claims That Fail at the Prima Facie Stage
A central issue in the appeal was whether the Immigration Judge was required to further develop the record before deciding the respondent’s applications.
The BIA relied on Matter of H-A-A-V-, 29 I&N Dec. 233 (BIA 2025), explaining that an Immigration Judge does not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when an application fails to set forth a prima facie claim for relief.
According to the BIA, the respondent had not identified evidence or any part of his application that the Immigration Judge had overlooked. As a result, the BIA concluded that the Immigration Judge properly pretermitted the applications.
DHS Motion Is Not Required
The most significant aspect of the decision concerns the respondent’s argument that the Immigration Judge could not pretermit his asylum and withholding applications without a motion from DHS.
The BIA rejected that argument.
The Board emphasized that an individual in removal proceedings carries the burden of proving eligibility for the immigration relief being requested under INA § 240(c)(4). The BIA also explained that an agency is not required to conduct a hearing when there is no genuine and substantial factual issue requiring resolution.
The BIA further recognized that Immigration Judges have broad discretion in conducting immigration proceedings and in admitting and considering evidence. Based on these principles, the Board held that an Immigration Judge may pretermit an application for asylum and withholding of removal without the filing of a motion by DHS.
Respondent Had an Opportunity to Present Evidence
The BIA also considered whether the respondent had received an adequate opportunity to present evidence supporting his claims.
The Board concluded that he had been given the appropriate opportunity to submit evidence and explain the basis for his applications. After reviewing the application and supporting evidence, the Immigration Judge determined that additional proceedings were unnecessary.
The BIA found no legal authority supporting the respondent’s argument that an Immigration Judge may make a prima facie determination only when DHS files a motion.
What the Decision Means for Asylum Applicants
Matter of G-R-B- reinforces the importance of presenting sufficient facts and evidence to establish a prima facie claim for asylum or withholding of removal.
An applicant must meet the applicable burden of proof and provide sufficient information supporting eligibility for the requested protection. If the application and supporting evidence do not establish a prima facie claim, the Immigration Judge may determine that further proceedings are unnecessary.
Importantly, the decision confirms that DHS does not have to initiate the pretermission process through a separate motion. The Immigration Judge may independently make the necessary prima facie determination based on the application and evidence before the court.
BIA Dismisses the Appeal
Ultimately, the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision and dismissed the respondent’s appeal. The Board held that the Immigration Judge properly pretermitted the respondent’s asylum and withholding applications because the respondent failed to establish prima facie eligibility and had not identified evidence requiring additional proceedings.
The decision provides an important clarification regarding the authority of Immigration Judges and the procedural requirements for pretermitting asylum and withholding claims. For applicants in removal proceedings, the ruling highlights the importance of presenting a sufficiently supported application and developing the factual and legal basis for each claim for relief.
Matter of G-R-B- should therefore be carefully considered by practitioners representing respondents seeking asylum or withholding of removal, particularly when assessing whether an application establishes a prima facie claim before the Immigration Court.
Immigration Fleet Law Firm