G-R-B-

page
102
Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 102 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4252
Matter of G-R-B-, Respondent
Decided September 29, 2026
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
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.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Alex M. Torres, Esquire, Bellaire, Texas
BEFORE: 	Board Panel: 	GORMAN, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge;
GALLOW and HANSELL, Appellate Immigration Judges.
GORMAN, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge:
The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals from the
Immigration Judge’s May 5, 2026, decision pretermitting his application for
asylum under section 208(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A) (2024), withholding of removal under
section 241(b)(3)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2024), and
protection under the regulations implementing the Convention Against
Torture.1 We will dismiss the appeal.
The respondent fears private-actor harm in Mexico based on race and
membership in a particular social group.2 	We affirm the Immigration
Judge’s 	pretermission 	of 	the 	respondent’s 	application 	for 	asylum 	and
withholding of removal on the basis that the respondent did not set forth
prima facie claims for the forms of relief sought. 	Matter of H-A-A-V-,
29 I&N Dec. 233, 238 (BIA 2025). As discussed in the Immigration Judge’s
decision, the respondent did not allege any prior harm on account of his race
1 	The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into
force for United States Nov. 20, 1994). 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17 (2026); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a) (2020).
2 	The respondent failed to make any meaningful arguments on appeal challenging the
Immigration Judge’s determination that his proposed social group is not cognizable and
that his asylum claim was untimely filed. Accordingly, we find these issues waived on
appeal. See Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (stating that issues
not meaningfully developed on appeal may be deemed waived).

Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 102 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4252
page
103
that rose to the level of persecution, and he did not identify any specific
evidence suggesting that he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in
Mexico based on his race in the future. The respondent also did not identify
any past torture or specific evidence that would suggest a likelihood of future
torture.
Rather than meaningfully contesting the Immigration Judge’s substantive
determinations, the respondent instead argues that the Immigration Judge
should have further developed the record as to these issues rather than
pretermitting his application for relief. 	However, as we held in Matter of
H-A-A-V-, 29 I&N Dec. at 234–36, an Immigration Judge need not conduct
an evidentiary hearing where an application does not set forth a prima facie
claim for relief. The respondent has not identified any evidence or aspect of
his application that was overlooked by the Immigration Judge. 	Therefore,
we affirm the Immigration Judge’s pretermission of such application.3
We 	disagree 	with 	the 	respondent’s 	appellate 	argument 	that 	the
Immigration Judge should not have pretermitted his application absent a
motion from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).4 	It is well-
established that an applicant in removal proceedings bears the burden of
proof to demonstrate eligibility for the relief sought. 	INA § 240(c)(4),
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4) (2024); Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 357, 371
(2021). An agency need not conduct a hearing where there is no genuine and
substantial issue of fact in the record. 	See Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott
& Dunning, Inc., 412 U.S. 609, 620–21 (1973) (agreeing with the agency
that a hearing is not required “where it is apparent at the threshold that the
applicant has not tendered any evidence which on its face meets the statutory
standards as particularized by the regulations”). 	Moreover, “Immigration
Judges have broad discretion in conducting immigration proceedings and
admitting 	and 	considering 	evidence.” 	Matter 	of 	J-H-M-H-, 	29 	I&N
Dec. 278, 280 (BIA 2025) (citing Matter of Interiano-Rosa, 25 I&N
Dec. 264, 265 (BIA 2010)). Thus, an Immigration Judge may pretermit an
3 	We need not reach the issue of whether the respondent’s application was also materially
incomplete. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (holding that “courts and
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary
to the results they reach”).
4 	The cases cited by the respondent from jurisdictions outside the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit are not binding in this matter. Matter of Anselmo, 20 I&N
Dec. 25, 31 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of U. Singh, 25 I&N Dec. 670, 672 (BIA 2012)
(stating that the Board “appl[ies] the law of the circuit in cases arising in that jurisdiction”).

Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 102 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4252
page
104
application for asylum and withholding of removal without the filing of a
motion by DHS.
The respondent in this case had the appropriate opportunity to submit
evidence in support of his application for relief and to set forth the basis for
his claims. See INA § 240(b)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B) (2024). After
reviewing 	the 	respondent’s 	application 	and 	supporting 	evidence, 	the
Immigration Judge properly concluded that it was unnecessary to conduct
further proceedings. 	See Matter of H-A-A-V-, 29 I&N Dec. at 234–35; see
also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2020) (noting an Immigration Judge’s discretionary
authority to assess whether good cause exists for continued proceedings).
The respondent has not identified any legal authority that supports the
proposition 	that 	an 	Immigration 	Judge 	can 	make 	such 	a 	prima 	facie
determination only on motion by DHS.
For these reasons, we affirm the Immigration Judge’s pretermission of
the respondent’s application.5
ORDER: The respondent’s appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: 	If a respondent is subject to a final order of removal and
willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States pursuant to the
order, to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents
necessary to depart the United States, or to present himself or herself at the
time and place required for removal by DHS, or conspires to or takes any
action designed to prevent or hamper the respondent’s departure pursuant to
the order of removal, the respondent shall be subject to a civil monetary
penalty of up to $998 for each day the respondent is in violation. 	See INA
§ 274D (2024), 8 U.S.C. § 1324d; 8 C.F.R. § 280.53(b)(14) (2026). Further,
any respondent that has been denied admission to, removed from, or has
departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or
removal is outstanding and thereafter enters, attempts to enter, or is at any
time found in the United States shall be fined or imprisoned not more than
2 years, or both. See INA § 276(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2024).
5 	We are also not persuaded that the Immigration Judge lacked impartiality in making
this prima facie determination.