You Made It to the Hearing.
Now Own the Room.
Now Own the Room.
TLDR
When the full hearing is no longer a given
On September 29, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals decided Matter of G-R-B-, 30 I&N Dec. 102 (BIA 2026), holding that an immigration judge may pretermit an application for asylum and withholding of removal without a motion from DHS. The decision builds on Matter of H-A-A-V-, 29 I&N Dec. 233 (BIA 2025), which held that a judge need not conduct an evidentiary hearing when an application does not set forth a prima facie claim for relief. Taken together, a judge can now review the application and supporting evidence and decide, on the court’s own initiative, that the claim will not go to a full hearing.
Most of the conversation since has focused on the application itself, and rightly so. In G-R-B-, the Board rejected the argument that the judge should have developed the record further, reminding us that the applicant bears the burden of proving eligibility for relief. A filing that clearly lays out each element of the claim, supported by specific evidence, is your first line of defense.
I want to talk about what comes next. When your client’s case clears that threshold and you walk into the individual hearing, that day is your client’s chance to be heard in full.
I sat on the bench as an immigration judge, and the attorneys who made that day count were the ones who knew how to try a case. That is a skill of its own. Law school teaches immigration law, but it rarely teaches immigration court practice. Whether you came to removal proceedings straight from law school or after years in civil or criminal courtrooms, the individual hearing has its own rhythm, its own rules, and its own expectations. Here are my answers to two questions I hear from attorneys again and again.
Do the rules of evidence apply in immigration court?
Not in the way many attorneys expect. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not bind immigration judges. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(c), the judge may receive material and relevant evidence. The question is whether the evidence is probative and whether using it is fundamentally fair. In practice, that means immigration judges often admit evidence, including hearsay, that a federal court would keep out.
Attorneys who come from trial practice sometimes conclude that objections don’t matter here. Attorneys newer to litigation sometimes conclude they shouldn’t speak up at all. There is a better way to see it. A well-placed objection flags a weakness the judge should weigh, keeps the record clean, and preserves the issue for the Board.
Additionally, objections aren’t just about exhibits. Testimony raises its own questions in real time: a leading question on direct, a compound question that trips up the interpreter, a question that misstates the evidence, or a witness offering opinions they haven’t been qualified to give.
Knowing which objections are worth making, and when strategic silence serves your client better, is judgment you build through practice.
Your direct, your cross, and the story the judge will decide
Every individual hearing comes down to a story and whether it holds together. On direct examination, your witness is the star and you are the director. Your job is to draw out the testimony in your client’s own words, through open questions, at a pace the interpreter can carry. On cross, the roles reverse, and DHS counsel takes the lead.
Most attorneys spend their preparation time on their own client’s testimony, and that time is well spent. The advocates who stand out also prepare their client for what comes next: cross-examination by DHS counsel, where the questions are short, leading, and aimed at any gap or inconsistency. Then they use re-direct with purpose, returning only to the points cross put in doubt, so the judge hears the clarification in the client’s own words. That is where a prepared advocate shapes the record instead of reacting to it.
Then there is the reality of the docket. Immigration judges manage heavy calendars, and hearing time is precious. Knowing your priorities walking in and closing in a way that connects the dots so the judge can adopt your facts, law, and analysis into the decision is part of trying the case well.
Learn to try your case from a former immigration judge
Each of these moments, from the objection you make to the question you save for re-direct, is a skill you can practice before your client’s day in court. The best place to build it is alongside someone who has seen thousands of individual hearings from the bench. Shelly Schools served six years as an immigration judge in Fort Worth, Texas, presiding over more than 4,000 hearings. Before that, she built a career as an Air Force judge advocate, retiring as a Colonel after serving as a prosecutor, defense counsel, and Chief Trial Judge of the Air Force. Few people know the courtroom from as many seats as she does.
Her live cohort, Trial Practice and Advocacy in Individual Hearings, runs several times a year. Knowing which objections to make, and building a strong direct and cross, are among the skills she works through with attorneys. Whether you are new to practice or new to removal proceedings after years in another courtroom, it is built to help you walk into your individual hearing ready to present your client’s case with confidence.
Learn more and register here.