Third-Country Deportations Resume, BIA Expands Pretermission

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court let the government resume deporting people to countries that are not their own, called third-country removals, while the case against the policy moves to full argument in December. The same day, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled in Matter of G-R-B- that an immigration judge can end an asylum or withholding case without a full hearing even when the government never asked for it. Both decisions shrink the time and the process people have to explain why they fear being sent somewhere.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court’s order is temporary. It is not a final ruling that third-country removals are lawful, and the justices will hear the merits in December 2026.
• Under Matter of G-R-B-, a judge no longer needs the government to file a motion before cutting off an asylum or withholding case that does not show prima facie eligibility on paper.
• Together, these rulings make the written record more important than ever. What you file, and when you say you are afraid, can decide your case before you ever testify.

What did the Supreme Court decide about third-country deportations?

The Court granted the government’s request to stay a final judgment from a federal district court in Massachusetts. In February 2026, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that before the government deports someone to a third country, it must give that person meaningful notice of where they are going and a meaningful chance to say they fear persecution or torture there. On September 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit largely upheld that judgment.

The Supreme Court’s September 29 order did three things. It granted the stay. It treated the government’s application as a petition for certiorari and granted it, so the Court will decide the merits. And it directed a briefing schedule so the case can be argued in the December 2026 session. The order says the stay ends when the Court sends down its final judgment. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson would have denied the stay. The order itself does not explain the majority’s reasoning.

The First Circuit panel had put the problem plainly, as ABC7 reported: “An individual’s right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution in that country means little if one does not receive prior notice.” For now, the lower courts cannot enforce that requirement while the Supreme Court considers the case.

What is a third-country removal?

A third-country removal sends a person with a final order of removal to a country that is not their country of citizenship and may be one where they have never lived. The federal removal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), lists the countries the government may choose, and it allows removal to other countries in some circumstances. This is the same case the Court first stayed in June 2025. The government told the justices that the lower court’s ruling “robs the government of an essential tool to remove certain aliens,” and, according to NPR’s reporting, says it has used the policy to deport tens of thousands of people.

The challengers, a class of people with final removal orders, argue that the government’s guidance lets it rely on diplomatic assurances from the receiving country and screens for danger only when a person speaks up about fear on their own, often with little or no warning of the destination. The Supreme Court will now decide four questions, including whether the district court had jurisdiction at all, whether classwide relief was allowed under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), and whether the guidance violates the immigration laws or the Constitution.

What did the BIA decide in Matter of G-R-B-?

In Matter of G-R-B-, 30 I&N Dec. 102 (BIA 2026), a three-member panel held: “An Immigration Judge may pretermit an application for asylum and withholding of removal without the filing of a motion by the Department of Homeland Security.”

The respondent, a Mexican national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He said he feared harm from private actors because of his race and his membership in a particular social group. In May 2026, the immigration judge pretermitted all three applications without a merits hearing. On appeal, he argued that the judge had no power to do that unless DHS first filed a motion asking for it.

The Board disagreed. It pointed out that the applicant carries the burden of proving eligibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4), that immigration judges have broad discretion to run their hearings, and that an agency does not have to hold a hearing when there is no real factual dispute to resolve. The Board found that he had not alleged past harm rising to persecution and had offered no specific evidence of a well-founded fear of future persecution or torture. It also held that he waived his arguments about his social group and the timeliness of his asylum application because he did not develop them on appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

How does G-R-B- build on earlier pretermission rulings?

The Board set the basic rule a year ago in Matter of H-A-A-V-, 29 I&N Dec. 233 (BIA 2025), decided September 11, 2025. That case held that if the facts in an asylum, withholding, or CAT application, viewed in the light most favorable to the applicant, do not show prima facie eligibility, the judge may pretermit without a full evidentiary hearing.

Since then, the government has used pretermission far more often. The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies reports that DHS filed more than 17,000 motions to pretermit in January 2026 alone, compared with 60 in January 2025. G-R-B- goes one step further: the judge does not have to wait for one of those motions.

What these rulings do (and do not) change

What changes now. Until the Supreme Court decides the merits, the government can carry out third-country removals under its own guidance, without the notice-and-opportunity requirements the lower courts imposed. In immigration court, judges can review an asylum or withholding application on their own and end it early if the written claim does not establish eligibility on its face.

What does not change. The law still prohibits removing someone to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened on a protected ground, under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and the CAT regulations still prohibit removal to a country where torture is more likely than not. We explain those protections in our guides to what withholding of removal is and the key differences between withholding and asylum. The Supreme Court order is interim, and the final answer on third-country procedures will come after the December argument. G-R-B- leaves the asylum standard the same. What it moves is the point at which a judge can decide you have not met it. BIA precedent binds immigration judges nationwide, and federal courts of appeals can still review the Board’s decisions in individual cases.

Who is most affected?

The Supreme Court order matters most to people who already have a final order of removal, especially those whose home country will not accept them or is slow to issue travel documents. Those are the cases where the government is most likely to look for a third country.

G-R-B- matters most to people with pending asylum and withholding cases in immigration court. It adds to a series of recent changes that move decisions earlier and off the witness stand, including the policy we covered when USCIS began referring asylum cases without an interview and the Supreme Court’s June ruling allowing the U.S. to turn away asylum seekers at the border.

What should people with pending cases or final orders think about now?

There is no single step that fits every case, and the wrong filing at the wrong time can create new problems. These are the questions we look at first:

• Does your application tell the whole story on paper? After H-A-A-V- and G-R-B-, a judge may decide your claim from the Form I-589, your declaration, and your evidence alone. A thin application that plans to "explain it at the hearing" may never reach a hearing.
• Are the legal elements addressed? The Board faulted this respondent for not showing past persecution-level harm or specific evidence of future risk. The protected ground, the persecutor, and the link between them all need to be in the record.
• Has every argument been preserved? The respondent in G-R-B- lost his social-group and timeliness arguments on appeal because he did not develop them. Appeals must argue each issue, not just list it.
• If you have a final order, what options remain? Depending on the facts, that may include a fear claim about a specific country, a motion to reopen, or, for someone detained, bond, habeas corpus, or parole. An attorney has to look at the full file to know which, if any, fits.

If you or a family member is in either situation, call us at (407) 917-2087 so we can review where the case stands.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the Supreme Court order mean third-country deportations are legal?

No. The Court granted a stay, which is temporary relief while it decides the case. It also agreed to hear the merits, with argument set for the December 2026 session. The final ruling could uphold the policy, strike it down, or land somewhere in between.

What does it mean when a judge pretermits an asylum case?

Pretermission means the judge ends the application before a full merits hearing because, even taking the applicant’s facts as true, they do not show prima facie eligibility. After Matter of G-R-B-, the judge can do this on their own, without a motion from DHS.

Can I still be protected from removal to a dangerous country?

Yes. Withholding of removal and CAT protection still bar removal to a country where you are likely to be persecuted or tortured. The fight in D.V.D. is about the process for raising that fear before a third-country removal; the protections themselves remain in the law.

Does G-R-B- apply to cases in Florida?

Yes. Published BIA decisions bind immigration judges across the country, including the courts in Orlando and Miami, unless a federal court of appeals rules otherwise.

How We Can Help

We represent people in immigration court who are seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, and we help families whose loved ones face removal after a final order. If your case is pending, we can review whether your application and evidence are strong enough to survive an early pretermission review. Learn more about our defensive asylum representation.

Our founding attorney Denisse Ilabaca is Board Certified in Immigration and Nationality Law by The Florida Bar, a distinction held by fewer than two percent of Florida attorneys. Start with a free pre-evaluation through our contact page or call (407) 917-2087.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about recent legal developments and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law changes often, and the right course of action depends on the specific facts of each case. Please consult a licensed immigration attorney about your situation.