The Trump administration has quietly reshaped a little-known Justice Department court — the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) — to steer immigration policy and expand detentions and deportations, an NPR analysis shows. By shrinking the board nearly in half and filling the remaining 15 slots with Trump appointees, the administration has produced a surge of precedent decisions that narrow due process and relief from removal.
The BIA, which reviews appeals from immigration judges within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), exists to catch errors and set binding guidance for immigration courts and agencies. After the reduction in force early in the administration, many Biden-era appointees were dismissed; others resigned or were later cut. EOIR said a larger board had not increased productivity and that current decisions reflect straightforward statutory interpretations under Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Garry Malphrus.
NPR’s review of BIA decisions since 2009 found a dramatic uptick in published precedents in 2025: the BIA issued 70 published decisions, the most in a year since 2009 and nearly as many as all publicly posted decisions under Biden. Those public rulings favored Department of Homeland Security lawyers in 97% of cases in 2025 — at least 30 percentage points higher than the 16-year average. Early tracking in 2026 shows DHS winning nearly all publicly posted cases as well.
Former and current immigration officials and attorneys say the board’s new posture has immediate consequences. The BIA has narrowed who may receive bond hearings and release from detention, adopted decisions making it easier to deport migrants to third countries, and issued fast-moving precedents intended to guide immigration judges nationwide. Critics say these changes produce broad, systemic effects because published BIA rulings are treated as controlling guidance for courts and agencies.
Former BIA judge Andrea Sáenz noted the outsized influence of the board’s precedents. Former judge Katharine Clark emphasized that BIA reviews once caught errors and overlooked details in flooded immigration dockets; with fewer appellate judges, she said, “mistakes are essentially inevitable.” Homero Lopez, another former BIA judge, said the administration focused on getting policy in place through the board rather than relying on immigration judge staffing.
Practitioners point to several specific shifts. At least three recent BIA decisions limit who is eligible for bond before immigration judges. In Matter of Yajure Hurtado, the board directed immigration judges to deny bond and detain noncitizens who entered illegally — a stance several federal district judges have criticized. EOIR instructed immigration judges to defer to Hurtado as precedent, and federal appellate courts, including the Ninth Circuit, are now weighing challenges.
Other published opinions have paved the way for removals to countries other than an immigrant’s homeland under certain agreements or arrangements. Immigration attorneys say these rulings, plus administrative directives favoring streamlined denials, have formed the backbone of how judges are handling asylum and bond matters.
The administration also moved to curtail appeals to the BIA. A proposed rule would shorten the deadline to appeal from 30 days to 10 and make it easier to dismiss appeals before a full review, a change EOIR said would reduce its backlog, which topped 200,000 cases by year’s end. Five immigrant-rights groups sued, arguing the rule would strain legal services and curtail meaningful review. A federal district judge, Randolph Moss, blocked most of the rule, finding it unlawful; he rejected the government’s contention that the rule would merely reduce workloads, likening the claim to arguing limitations on activity somehow reduce costs.
The Trump-era changes also reflect broader turnover across immigration adjudication: hundreds of immigration judges were fired, resigned, or retired, leaving roughly a quarter fewer judges than at the start of 2025, according to NPR’s earlier reporting. EOIR issued memos signaling priorities of more denials in asylum and bond cases.
Advocates warn the real-world impacts are significant. Victoria Neilson, supervising attorney at the National Immigration Project, said the BIA’s decisions now make it “nearly impossible” for many to obtain bond. Clark said removing bond options has had “a tangible effect on the lives of millions of people.”
The Justice Department provided a statement saying EOIR is restoring integrity to adjudication and will continue to enforce the law to protect public safety. EOIR declined to comment on litigation and did not respond to questions about the reduction in force; its federal register notice argued expanding the board previously had not achieved intended productivity gains.
NPR’s analysis of published BIA decisions used an AI tool to review 634 cases decided from Jan. 1, 2009, through March 18, 2026, classifying whether panels decided for DHS or the immigrant. Reporters tested and verified the tool’s accuracy, and an independent lawyer who tracked cases for 2015 and 2021 reviewed and confirmed the results.
As the board issues precedent after precedent and administrative rules are proposed, federal courts are beginning to push back. For now, however, the BIA’s reshaped membership and output are changing the balance of relief and detention in immigration courts nationwide.
