On April 14, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) published a significant precedent decision that could reshape how hearings are conducted across the nation's immigration courts.
In Matter of A-M-Z-F-, the BIA issued a significant ruling
formally establishing that
parties in Immigration Court have no absolute right to give a closing argument.
The decision, published at
Matter of A-M-Z-F-, 29 I&N Dec. 551 (BIA 2026)
, has drawn immediate attention from immigration practitioners, civil liberties advocates, and legal scholars who worry it could further erode procedural safeguards for noncitizens facing deportation — particularly at a time when the immigration court system is already under enormous strain.
The Case: A Coptic Christian Asylum Seeker
The case involved a Coptic Christian from Egypt who sought asylum due to threats from extremists.
During his hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his counsel the opportunity to give a closing argument. The respondent appealed, arguing this denial violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process.
The case touches on a community with deep and well-documented ties to religious persecution.
Copts belong to one of the oldest Christian communities in the world and make up about 10% of Egypt's population. A majority of Coptic Christians live in Egypt. They face discrimination and periodic violence.
Throughout modern Egyptian history, Copts have reported instances of discrimination, sectarian violence, and social marginalization. Human Rights Watch has documented increasing religious intolerance and attacks against Christian communities in recent decades.
Despite these conditions, the respondent's appeal was ultimately rejected.
The BIA's Ruling
The BIA ultimately held that parties in Immigration Court have no absolute right to give a closing argument. Instead, the ruling established that Immigration Judges have the authority to control the course of a hearing.
The Board applied what is known as a "fundamental fairness" test, concluding that the denial of closing arguments did not automatically constitute a due process violation.
In this specific case, the Board found that because the attorney only intended to highlight general country conditions that wouldn't have changed the judge's mind, there was no due process violation.
In reaching this conclusion, the BIA effectively affirmed that
Immigration Judges have immense power to "regulate the course of the hearing".
The decision does not eliminate closing arguments entirely from immigration proceedings — but it firmly places the decision about whether to allow them within the discretion of the presiding judge.
Due Process Rights That Remain
Due process is a constitutional safeguard meant to ensure the government treats you fairly before taking away your liberty.
While the BIA ruled that closing arguments aren't always required, you still have several essential rights in removal proceedings: Right to Notice — you must be informed of the charges against you and the time and place of your hearing. Right to Counsel — you have the right to be represented by an attorney (at your own expense). Opportunity to Present Evidence — you must have a reasonable chance to present your own evidence and cross-examine the government's witnesses. Interpretation Services — if you do not speak English fluently, you are entitled to a competent interpreter at no cost.
These core protections remain intact under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Formal removal proceedings are conducted before an immigration judge within the Executive Office for Immigration Review. In these proceedings, the alien has a right to counsel at his own expense, the right to apply for available relief from removal, the right to present testimony and evidence on his own behalf, and the right to administratively appeal an adverse decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
However, the A-M-Z-F- decision notably draws closing arguments outside the boundaries of these guaranteed procedural rights.
A Broader Context of Shrinking Safeguards
The ruling arrives at a moment when the immigration court system faces profound structural pressures.
The agency's most recent report indicates that there were 557 immigration judges working in the first quarter of 2026.
That represents a significant reduction from prior years,
as in the 2025 fiscal year, there were only 634 immigration judges spread throughout the country's network of immigration courts, a drop of 101 from 735 immigration judges the year before.
Meanwhile, caseloads have skyrocketed.
In fiscal year 2025, migrants filed almost 875,000 asylum cases with immigration courts nationwide. Added to the backlog of cases that already existed, the immigration court system ended the federal government's fiscal year with almost 2.5 million asylum cases pending.
The A-M-Z-F- decision also comes on the heels of sweeping changes to the BIA's appellate procedures. In February 2026, the Department of Justice issued an interim final rule that fundamentally restructured immigration appeals.
The U.S. Department of Justice, through the Executive Office for Immigration Review, issued an Interim Final Rule that fundamentally restructures how appeals are handled before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Effective March 9, 2026, this rule transforms the BIA from a body that routinely reviewed Immigration Judge decisions into one that selectively chooses which cases it will hear on the merits.
Although
a federal court blocked key provisions from this new rule from going into effect, including the shortened 10-day appeal deadline and automatic dismissal of appeals unless the BIA votes to review
, the broader trajectory toward reduced oversight of immigration court proceedings is unmistakable.
Practical Implications for Immigrants and Their Attorneys
For individuals in removal proceedings and the attorneys representing them, the Matter of A-M-Z-F- decision carries significant practical consequences.
If your judge decides to skip closing arguments, your attorney must be prepared to make every other part of the trial — the testimony, the evidence, and the legal briefs — count.
This means that case strategy must increasingly front-load persuasive legal arguments into written submissions, direct examination, and evidentiary presentations rather than relying on a closing statement to tie the case together.
The Immigration Court hearing is now more critical than ever. Because appeals are no longer automatically reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, every legal argument must be fully developed at the trial level. Evidence must be carefully prepared and properly submitted, and all issues must be clearly preserved for any potential appeal. There is far less opportunity to "fix" mistakes later. What happens in Immigration Court may effectively determine the final outcome.
This reality is especially concerning for unrepresented respondents.
Statistics show that immigrants with lawyers are significantly more likely to succeed in their cases.
For pro se litigants who may not fully understand the process, the loss of an opportunity to make a closing argument — even one that may seem procedurally minor — could mean losing the last chance to articulate why they deserve relief.
What Comes Next
The A-M-Z-F- ruling is a BIA precedent decision, meaning it is binding on Immigration Judges nationwide. It remains to be seen whether federal circuit courts will adopt the same position if and when petitions for review raise the closing argument issue.
The decision also invites broader questions about the nature of due process in an administrative system that, unlike criminal courts, operates outside the Article III judicial branch.
Neither the nation's immigration courts nor the BIA are part of the judicial branch. Instead, both are units of the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review.
For now, the message from the BIA is clear: closing arguments in immigration court are a privilege, not a right. In a system where liberty and safety are on the line — and where
rushed "expedited" dockets often give respondents little time to find a lawyer or gather evidence from their home countries
— practitioners and respondents alike must adapt their strategies accordingly.
---
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you or someone you know is facing removal proceedings, consult a qualified immigration attorney immediately.