The Justice Department’s immigration courts started charging mandatory fees for asylum cases on June 11, with both an upfront filing fee and a $102 annual fee for every calendar year an asylum case remains pending—and not one dollar can be waived, even for applicants who cannot afford it. A binding Board of Immigration Appeals precedent decision has reshaped how people with final removal orders can seek relief. A new DOJ process has centralized who decides whether trafficking survivors can file for early permanent residence. These three policy shifts, alongside two others, represent material changes to how immigration practitioners advise clients and structure filings.
What changed
The Executive Office for Immigration Review finalized a rule on June 11 imposing both an upfront filing fee and a $102 annual fee for every calendar year an asylum case remains pending before the courts or the Board of Immigration Appeals, with no waiver option even for applicants without means. Cancellation of removal, a form of relief available to long-term U.S. residents without green cards, now costs $1,640 in combined fees, and all payments must flow through an online portal.
The Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedent decision on June 12 (Matter of Herrera-Nunez, 29 I&N Dec. 691 (BIA 2026)) that, going forward, will generally require people with final removal orders to first request a stay of deportation from ICE before the BIA will consider a stay request filed alongside a motion to reopen or reconsider. ICE charges a fee for stay requests, though it can be waived.
Survivors of human trafficking who hold T visas have a path to permanent residence after three years, but Congress wrote in a shortcut: if the underlying trafficking investigation or prosecution is complete, they can apply sooner. On June 16, the Justice Department proposed formalizing who controls access to that shortcut—the answer is DOJ’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section, which will now issue—or withhold—the certification letters survivors need to file early.
Why it matters
The asylum fee structure fundamentally changes the economics of relief-seeking. The legal theory propping this up is thin, creating a potential litigation opening. But until a court enjoins the fees, applicants must pay or abandon their cases. The precedent decision requiring ICE-issued stays first redirects the most vulnerable people in the immigration system—those already ordered deported, trying to reopen cases based on new relief—directly toward the enforcement agency trying to remove them. The rationale is docket management; the BIA cited its crushing caseload.
For T visa holders, the new centralized DOJ gatekeeping process is new; previously, that early-filing pathway existed on paper without a centralized DOJ gatekeeping process attached to it. A trafficking survivor who cannot get that letter—because prosecutors say an investigation isn’t “complete,” or simply because the bureaucracy moves slowly—stays in limbo longer.
Way forward
-
For asylum practitioners: Immediately audit your pending cases for fee obligations. Budget clients for annual fees during case pendency. Begin documenting financial hardship for waivers on cases filed before June 11 if your local immigration court has not yet uniformly enforced the no-waiver rule.
-
For removal defense attorneys: Do not file BIA stays without first exhausting ICE’s stay process or, if viable, file ICE stays in parallel. Review Matter of Herrera-Nunez at 29 I&N Dec. 691 and prepare for expected appellate challenges on due-process and administrative-law grounds.
-
For T visa practitioners: DOJ estimates about 2,000 such requests a year, and the comment window closes August 17. If your client’s trafficking investigation or prosecution timeline is ambiguous, contact DOJ’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section early to understand their “completion” standard before filing.
Disclaimer
Folaform is a software and content company, not a law firm. This article is not legal advice. It summarizes publicly available policy announcements to alert practitioners to recent changes. Verify all details against the primary sources linked above and consult a licensed immigration attorney before advising clients or making filing decisions. Immigration policy changes frequently and without notice; always check the primary source URL to confirm the current state of the law before relying on this summary.