The Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of J-H-M-H held on October 7, 2025 that even when the events in a case – the noncitizen respondent and the federal government – have stipulated to sure points of the case, Immigration Judges train impartial judgment and should not required to just accept get together stipulations. On this case, the respondent and the DHS submitted a joint memorandum in October 2023 earlier than the Immigration Decide stipulating that the respondent recognized as a transgender lady, that the testimony can be in keeping with the written supplies submitted, and that the respondent was eligible for deferral of removing beneath the rules implementing the Conference In opposition to Torture. The IJ rejected the stipulation and set the case for listening to to take testimony. The respondent didn’t testify in help of the declare and sought to depend on the contents of the appliance, the non-public assertion and the stipulation. The IJ denied reduction beneath CAT.
Of their enchantment, the respondent relied on the Board’s 1989 choice in Matter of Fefe, which held that at a minimal an asylum applicant take the stand, be positioned beneath oath and be questioned whether or not the data within the written software is full, and that the examination of the respondent will probably be transient solely the place the events have stipulated that the applicant’s oral testimony can be in keeping with their written software and be believably offered. The Board, nonetheless, held that Matter of Fefe is not binding preceded because it predated the enactment of INA 240(b)(4)(B) in 1996. This provision permits noncitizens to look at proof in opposition to them, current proof on their very own behalf and to cross-examine witnesses. But, the Board just lately held in September 2025 in Matter of H-A-A-V- that an IJ might pretermit an asylum software and not using a full evidentiary listening to on the deserves of the declare and in addition held that Matter of Fefe is not binding precedent. It’s paradoxical that the Board affirmed an IJ’s insistence to carry a listening to regardless of a joint stipulation in Matter of J-H-M-H– however affirmed an IJ’s skill to pretermit an asylum software in Matter of H-A-A-V- and not using a full evidentiary listening to on the deserves of the declare.
What does this case imply for future instances? We regularly stipulate with the DHS legal professional on numerous points of the case. For instance, there may very well be a stipulation on the bona fides of the wedding in a evaluation of the I-751 petition in immigration courtroom. The events might stipulate that allegations made by a overseas authorities by an Interpol Purple Discover in opposition to the respondent haven’t any foundation and shouldn’t be thought-about when adjudicating an asylum or adjustment software. Stipulations certainly encourage effectivity and permit the events to give attention to the important side of the case. Underneath the Trump administration, an IJ might not need to go together with a stipulation out of worry that she or he might get fired. Or a newly appointed army decide inexperienced in immigration legislation who is probably not favorably inclined to grant reduction or advantages might need to override a stipulation.
Stipulations are particularly crucial in defending susceptible purchasers with psychological competency points. They might embrace each kids and adults with diminished capability. In the event that they danger going through substantial hurt, a joint stipulation the place the events can comply with the respondent’s eligibility for asylum and associated reduction can function an ample protecting measure if the respondent could also be unable to testify because of diminished capability. A lawyer who represents a consumer with diminished capability is required to hunt protecting motion if the consumer will face hurt beneath ABA Mannequin Rul 1.14, and a stipulation can be one approach to defend the consumer with diminished capability.
The Board cited the regulation at 8 CFR 1003.10(b) to uphold the IJ disregarding the stipulation in Matter of J-H-M-H: “In deciding the person instances earlier than them…immigration judges shall train their impartial judgment and discretion and should take any motion in keeping with their authorities beneath the Act and rules that’s needed or acceptable for the disposition or various decision of such instances.” Nonetheless, this regulation doesn’t preclude a stipulation from being thought-about binding on the events.
The BIA in Matter of J-H-M-H has sadly empowered IJs to ignore stipulations, which in flip would undermine effectivity and lead to extra backlogs. If there is no such thing as a case or controversy between the federal government and the respondent, the IJ ought not be enjoying any position. This choice promotes extra inefficiency and backlogs in an already dysfunctional system. Immigration practitioners have to be ready to undergo a full-fledged listening to even when there was a stipulation in case an IJ insists on a full listening to. However, beneath Matter of H-A-A-V-, as IJ’s have the ability to pretermit asylum purposes and not using a full evidentiary listening to, practitioners should submit complete purposes to make sure that the respondent can set up prima facie eligibility, and within the occasion of a pretermination, there’s a adequate foundation within the document to enchantment the choice.
[This blog is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as a substitute for legal advice]
