The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is an administrative agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ) which adjudicates appeals of decisions by immigration judges and certain U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denials. The Board receives 30,000-60,000 appeals each year. In 2024, the BIA adjudicated 44,785 appeals, leaving 138,672 cases pending. Very few of these decisions are “published,” meaning that the decision becomes available to the public and is binding on immigration judges and USCIS. Over the past eight years, the Board issued between 13-27 precedential decisions each year. However, as of Aug. 22, 2025, the Board has already published 34 precedential cases and is on track to set a record for the number of cases published in a single year.

How are decisions designated as precedent?

A Board decision may be issued by a single member, a three-member panel, or en banc. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)-(6). Decisions by a three-member panel or en banc may be designated as precedent. A decision becomes precedential by vote of the majority of permanent Board members or at the direction of the attorney general. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3). The regulations provide guidelines for the types of Board decisions that should be designated as precedent. This includes a “substantial issue of first impression,” an issue that frequently arises in immigration cases, the decision announces or clarifies a legal issue, a decision which resolves a conflict of law created by previous precedent, or whether the case warrants publication in the public interest. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3).

Who are the Board members?

The attorney general appoints members to the Board for indefinite terms. The size of the Board has fluctuated over time. There are currently 9 permanent members — down from 26 permanent Board members at the end of the Biden administration. In addition to the permanent Board members, there are six temporary Board members. Temporary Board members adjudicate appeals, but they are not permitted to vote on precedential decisions. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(4). Temporary Board members’ terms are limited to six months; however, the attorney general may renew a temporary Board member’s term indefinitely. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(4).

The Trump administration quickly dismissed a majority of the Board members following the 2025 inauguration — a move that echoes the actions of the George W. Bush administration. Then-Attorney General Ashcroft reduced the number of Board members from 23 to 11 members. At that point, the case backlog consisted of 56,000 cases, which pales into comparison to the current backlog. The previous purge targeted Board members with the highest rates of decisions favorable to noncitizens This strategy was effective in achieving a higher rate of unfavorable decisions for noncitizens and led to an increase in affirmances without opinion, where the Board issues decisions with no legal reasoning.

The George W. Bush administration then went on to hire several immigration judges and appoint some new members to the Board. Later investigations found that political affiliation was a critical criterion for any Board members and Immigration Judges hired during this period. Notably, current Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Garry Malphrus, a former Republican staffer who protested ballot recounts in Florida during the 2000 election, was hired without application or interview in 2005.

The Trump administration’s own purge of the Board echoes efforts by the Bush administration to turn the tide of Board adjudications against noncitizens. Prior Board members with extensive experience advocating for noncitizens have been dismissed. On April 14, 2025, the Trump administration published an interim final rule restricting the size of the Board to 15 members. This step goes beyond the Bush administration’s strategy. A smaller Board permits decisions to be published based on a smaller majority of members. The attorney general can ensure that this smaller majority consists of politically aligned appointees.

Have these changes impacted published decisions?

All but one of the decisions published in 2025 resulted in a negative outcome for the respondent to the case. 14 of the decisions were published by order of the attorney general, without a vote of the Board members. Overall, these previously unpublished decisions do not address novel issues before them, resolve any conflicts of law, or clarify legal issues. The remaining decisions, published following a vote of the Board, have been issued quickly. This, no doubt, reflects the ease of achieving a majority vote among only 9 — rather than 26 — voting members. Chief Appellate Judge Malphrus is a panel member of 18 of the published cases. Of those 18, he authored 8 decisions – nearly a quarter of the decisions issued in 2025.

The Board’s decisions tend to be conveniently timed to support policies of the Trump administration by undermining relief for noncitizens in the United States. The single favorable decision, Matter of C-A-R-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 13 (BIA 2025), remanded a case in which an IJ pretermitted an asylum application for failing to include a declaration. The Board granted that respondent’s appeal, but laid the groundwork for immigration judges (IJs) to pretermit asylum applications for other deficiencies. In Matter of K-E-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 145 (BIA 2025), the Board renews an effort to undermine gender-based particular social groups that began during the first Trump administration. These decisions, among others, reflect the Trump administration’s continued efforts to prevent noncitizens from seeking protection in the United States.

Following the wrongful removal of Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia, along with hundreds of Venezuelans, to the notorious CECOT prison, the Board issued decisions undermining claims for protection based on Salvadoran prison conditions and prison conditions in general. See Matter of A-A-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 38 (BIA 2025), Matter of A-A-F-V-, 29 I&N Dec. 118 (BIA 2025), Matter of S-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 136 (BIA 2025). The Board’s decisions in Matter of Q. Li and Matter of Roque Izada support arguments that ICE has been advancing in court that prevent any noncitizen who entered unlawfully from requesting a bond while undermining arguments that would make these same groups of noncitizens eligible to adjust status.

The decisions published so far signal the Board’s emerging role as a policy arm of the Trump administration. The Board’s decisions signal to advocates that adjudication by a neutral arbiter will require appeal to the Federal Circuit Courts.

CLINIC will continue to monitor trends in BIA decisions. A list of 2025’s decisions through August 22, 2025, can be found here.