The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has issued a significant ruling regarding the consequences of failing to pay the annual asylum fee. The decision, made on July 24, 2026, impacts individuals seeking asylum in the United States, particularly those who also apply for statutory withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This ruling clarifies that while failure to pay the asylum fee can lead to the abandonment of asylum applications, it does not affect related claims for withholding of removal or CAT protection.
The case, referred to as Matter of L-F-R-, involves a Cuban national who appealed a decision from an Immigration Judge. The Immigration Judge had found that the respondent abandoned her asylum application due to non-payment of the annual fee mandated by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The BIA's ruling provides clarity on how the annual asylum fee applies to different types of immigration relief.
Background
The respondent in this case, a native and citizen of Cuba, filed an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (Form I-589) on January 13, 2025. Under the OBBBA, which was enacted to establish various fees for asylum applications, the Immigration Judge set a deadline for the respondent to pay the annual asylum fee by March 16, 2026. When the respondent failed to make this payment, the Immigration Judge pretermitted her asylum application, leading to the appeal.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opposed the appeal, arguing that the failure to pay the annual asylum fee should result in the abandonment of the entire Form I-589 application, which included claims for statutory withholding of removal and CAT protection. The BIA sought additional briefing on whether the annual asylum fee applied solely to asylum applications or extended to other forms of protection.
The Ruling
The BIA ruled that while the annual asylum fee is a mandatory requirement for asylum applications, it does not extend to applications for statutory withholding of removal or CAT protection. The court stated, "the annual asylum fee and consequences for not paying it do not extend to an application for statutory withholding of removal or a request for protection under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture." This ruling was made by a panel of judges including Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Gorman, Appellate Immigration Judge Volkert, and Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge Picos.
The BIA emphasized that the OBBBA's language specifically refers to "an application for asylum under section 1158 of [the INA]" and does not mention withholding of removal or CAT protection. The court noted that Congress has previously distinguished between these forms of relief in other legislation, suggesting that the omission in the OBBBA was intentional.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for asylum seekers and the immigration process. It clarifies that while the annual asylum fee is a critical requirement for asylum applications, individuals applying for withholding of removal or CAT protection will not be penalized for failing to pay this fee. This distinction is crucial as it allows applicants to pursue these forms of relief even if their asylum applications are deemed abandoned due to non-payment.
The decision may also influence future cases, as it sets a precedent that the annual asylum fee cannot be used as a blanket requirement for all forms of protection under the same application. This ruling could lead to more individuals successfully navigating the immigration system, particularly those who may be at risk of removal but are eligible for other forms of protection.
What's Next
The BIA remanded the case back to the Immigration Court for further proceedings, allowing the respondent's claims for statutory withholding of removal and CAT protection to be considered. It remains to be seen whether this decision will be appealed or if there are related cases pending that could further clarify the application of the asylum fee.