Immigration Judges Now Have Authority to Dismiss Asylum Claims Without Hearings: Implications for Cubans with I-220A

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has introduced a new mechanism allowing immigration judges to deny asylum applications without holding a full hearing. If the facts and evidence presented fail to establish, on their face, eligibility for asylum, judges can dismiss the case without requiring a prior motion from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

This precedent, known as Matter of G-R-B-, 30 I&N Dec. 102 (BIA 2026), was issued on September 29 and is particularly significant for immigrants, including many Cubans holding I-220A, who are defending their asylum claims in court.

The ruling clearly states that "an immigration judge may pretermit an application for asylum and withholding of removal without a motion from the Department of Homeland Security."

Practically speaking, this means that judges no longer need to wait for government attorneys to request case dismissal. They can review the application and evidence provided by the immigrant and decide not to proceed to a full hearing if the facts, even when taken in the most favorable light for the applicant, do not establish a prima facie case for the requested protection.

However, the BIA emphasized that the immigrant must have had a fair chance to present evidence and articulate the grounds for their application before the judge makes such a decision.

The Importance of the I-589 Form and Evidence

This precedent takes a step beyond what was established in September 2025 with Matter of H-A-A-V-, 29 I&N Dec. 233, where the BIA determined that a judge need not conduct a full evidentiary hearing if the facts alleged in the application, viewed most favorably to the immigrant, do not prima facie demonstrate eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The distinction is crucial: in that case, DHS had requested pretermitting. Now, under Matter of G-R-B-, the BIA asserts that no government request is required.

This development elevates the significance of the I-589 form and accompanying evidence, as the written record can be crucial in deciding whether the case advances to a hearing where the immigrant might testify.

Case Originating the New Precedent

Matter of G-R-B- emerged from the case of a Mexican citizen whose application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture was pretermitted by an immigration judge on May 5, 2026.

The applicant claimed fear of harm in Mexico from private actors due to his race and membership in a specific social group.

The BIA's official decision noted that the judge found, among other factors, that the applicant had not alleged past harm rising to the level of persecution based on race nor provided specific evidence of a well-founded fear of future persecution for this reason.

Furthermore, the BIA stated that the applicant did not adequately develop his arguments on appeal concerning the legal recognition of his proposed social group and that his asylum application had been filed untimely. These points were thus deemed abandoned on appeal.

The court ultimately upheld the pretermittance and dismissed the appeal.

Implications for Cubans with I-220A

Although this precedent does not specifically target Cubans or alter the legal status of I-220A recipients, it holds particular significance for those with pending defensive asylum applications before immigration courts.

Attorney Willy Allen had already warned in October 2025 about the potential impacts of Matter of H-A-A-V- on poorly prepared asylum cases.

"If not all questions on the asylum application are answered, or if details are omitted, the immigration judge can automatically dismiss the case due to incompleteness," he explained at the time.

With the new precedent, it is explicitly established that the judge can independently pretermit the application without DHS filing a motion.

To pass this initial scrutiny, the case must present facts that, if true, satisfy the legal requirements for the requested protection. For asylum, this includes establishing a connection between the alleged or feared persecution and at least one of the protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Economic hardships or the desire for improved living conditions alone do not qualify as protected grounds.

This change comes amid heightened uncertainty for many Cubans with I-220A who have ongoing processes in immigration courts.

A class-action lawsuit involving 992 Cubans with I-220A in Miami is still progressing through the courts, while recent changes in immigration policy have increased anxiety among those relying on asylum proceedings to remain legally in the United States.

Attorney Liudmila Marcelo emphasized this week the importance of having legal representation, especially as the final hearing approaches.

"I don't advise anyone at this time to go to their final hearing without a lawyer. Why? Because having one ensures you can file a well-prepared appeal if the case is lost," she stated in comments reported by CiberCuba.