T-A-G-

page
715
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4209
Matter of T-A-G-, et al., Respondents
Decided June 23, 2026
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
The Immigration Judge erred in denying the Department of Homeland Security’s motion
to pretermit the respondents’ asylum applications based on their potential eligibility for
collateral relief.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS: Sheree Wright, Esquire, Phoenix, Arizona
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Simona D. Roberts, Assistant
Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: MAHTABFAR, OWEN, and GALLOW, Appellate Immigration
Judges.
GALLOW, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The 	Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security 	(“DHS”) 	has 	filed 	an
interlocutory appeal from the Immigration Judge’s January 2, 2026, decision
denying DHS’ motion to pretermit the respondents’ asylum applications
because the respondents are the potential beneficiaries of pending petitions
for alien relatives (Form I-130). 	Although we do not ordinarily entertain
interlocutory appeals, we deem it appropriate to do so here to correct a
recurring problem in the handling of cases by Immigration Judges. 	Matter
of M-D-, 24 I&N Dec. 138, 139 (BIA 2007). The interlocutory appeal will
be sustained, the Immigration Judge’s decision will be vacated, and the
record will be remanded.
In March 2023, the respondents, who are natives and citizens of Belize,
filed the first of three asylum applications. 	On December 31, 2025, DHS
moved to pretermit the respondents’ applications, arguing that their claim
contains 	several 	deficiencies 	warranting 	pretermission 	and 	that 	the
respondents are subject to the Asylum Cooperative Agreements (“ACA”)
with Honduras, Guatemala, and Ecuador. 	See section 208(a)(2)(A) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(A) (2024);
see also Matter of H-A-A-V-, 29 I&N Dec. 233, 238 (BIA 2025) (explaining
that Immigration Judges may pretermit asylum applications); Matter of
C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 291, 295–97 (BIA 2025) (outlining the
process for considering motions to pretermit based on the application of one

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4209
page
716
or more ACAs). 	At a master calendar hearing on January 2, 2026, both
parties agreed to reset the master calendar hearing to October 1, 2026. That
same day, the Immigration Judge entered an order denying DHS’ motion to
pretermit the respondents’ asylum applications, without considering its
merits, “pending adjudication of the Form I-130s filed on the respondents’
behalf.”
We conclude that the Immigration Judge erred in denying DHS’ motion
to pretermit the respondents’ asylum applications based on the respondents’
potential eligibility for collateral relief. The respondents’ potential eligibility
for another type of relief is not a factor for the Immigration Judge to consider
when ruling on a motion to pretermit an asylum application. 	See generally
Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. at 299 (holding that the
Immigration Judge erred in denying DHS’ motion to pretermit an asylum
claim based on the ACA bar and remanding for further consideration of that
bar to asylum); Matter of H-A-A-V-, 29 I&N Dec. at 238 (concluding that an
Immigration Judge may pretermit applications for asylum without a full
evidentiary hearing on the merits of the claim where the factual allegations
underlying the claim do not establish prima facie eligibility for such relief).
This is particularly salient where, as here, the respondents’ separate potential
form of relief is not something within the Immigration Judge’s authority to
adjudicate. 	In this case, the Immigration Judge’s order acknowledges that
the respondents are classified as arriving aliens and are therefore unable to
pursue adjustment of status in removal proceedings. 	See INA § 245(a),
8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2024). Thus, the outcome of the respondents’ removal
proceedings is not affected by the potential approval of their pending Form
I-130s. 	See Matter of Medina Madrid, 29 I&N Dec. 514, 517 (BIA 2026)
(finding that a pending application for collateral relief was not an appropriate
basis for indefinite administrative closure of removal proceedings). 	If
removability has been established and the respondents are found ineligible
for relief, the Immigration Judge should issue orders of removal.
Accordingly, we will sustain DHS’ appeal and remand the record to the
Immigration Judge to adjudicate anew DHS’ motion to pretermit. 	In
remanding, we express no opinion on the 	ultimate outcome of 	these
proceedings. See Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 413, 422 (BIA 1996).
ORDER: DHS’ interlocutory appeal is sustained, and the Immigration
Judge’s January 2, 2026, decision is vacated.
FURTHER ORDER: 	The record is remanded to the Immigration
Court for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for
the entry of a new decision.