Matter of A-M-F-Z- Closing Arguments and the Erosion of Full Advocacy in Immigration Court

A Critical Analysis of  Matter of A-M-F-Z-, 29 I&N Dec. 551 (BIA 2026) from the Perspective of a Former DHS Prosecutor and Immigration Litigator.

In adversarial proceedings, the right to be heard does not end with the presentation of evidence. It includes the opportunity to interpret that evidence, apply the governing law, and articulate why the legal standard has been met or not met. That function is performed through closing argument.

In Matter of A-M-F-Z-, decided on April 14, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that there is no right to present closing argument in removal proceedings unless the respondent can demonstrate that the denial rises to the level of a due process violation. The Board further concluded that the Immigration Judge may deny closing argument without violating due process where the record is otherwise deemed sufficiently developed. That holding deserves careful scrutiny.

The Function of Closing Argument in Adjudication

A removal proceeding, by its nature, produces a record consisting of testimonial evidence, documentary submissions, and credibility determinations that must be evaluated under specific statutory and regulatory standards.

Closing argument is the stage at which counsel:

• Synthesizes the evidentiary record into a legally coherent framework;

• Applies the relevant burden of proof to each required element;

• Addresses credibility findings and evidentiary deficiencies; and

• Identifies which facts are dispositive under controlling law

  
  

This is not redundancy. It is the structured presentation of the case as it must be decided.

Particularly in immigration proceedings where credibility, corroboration, and legal characterization are often dispositive. Closing argument serves as a critical safeguard against misapplication of the law or misinterpretation of the record.

The BIA’s Framework: Discretion Conditioned on Prejudice

In Matter of A-M-F-Z-, the Board reframes closing argument as a discretionary procedural component rather than an inherent part of a full and fair hearing.

Under this framework:

• The Immigration Judge may deny closing argument;

• The respondent must then demonstrate, on appeal, that the denial resulted in prejudice 

  
  

This approach is problematic. Closing argument is designed to prevent error at the adjudicative stage. Requiring a respondent to later establish prejudice from its absence overlooks the reality that the harm is often embedded in how the decision is reasoned, not in any single identifiable omission. The absence of closing argument does not leave a visible gap in the record, it affects how the record is understood.

Internal Tension in the Decision

The Board’s reasoning is further complicated by its disposition of the case. While concluding that the respondent was not prejudiced because the record was sufficiently developed, the BIA nonetheless remanded for further analysis of credibility and evidentiary sufficiency. These are precisely the issues that closing argument is intended to clarify. If additional analysis was required, it raises a legitimate question as to whether the absence of closing argument contributed to the lack of clarity that necessitated remand.

Implications for Record Development and Appellate Review

Closing argument also serves a critical function beyond the immediate adjudication: it structures the record for appellate review.

Through closing argument, counsel:

• Clearly articulates how the legal standard applies to the facts;

• Identifies errors in the opposing party’s theory;

• Preserves challenges to credibility findings and evidentiary weight 

  
  

When that opportunity is denied, the record may lack the level of precision necessary for meaningful appellate review. The result is a record that is technically complete, but substantively underdeveloped.

A Shift in the Adversarial Model

Having litigated cases as former counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, I have seen firsthand the extent to which Immigration Judges rely on structured advocacy from both parties to reach legally sound decisions.

The approach reflected in Matter of A-M-F-Z- risks shifting the process toward adjudication without full adversarial engagement. While docket efficiency is a legitimate concern, it should not come at the expense of the procedural mechanisms that ensure accurate and fair outcomes.

A Broader Context: Efficiency Pressures Driving Procedural Limitations

It is difficult to view Matter of A-M-F-Z- as an isolated procedural ruling. In my view, this decision reflects a broader push within the immigration system to resolve cases as quickly as possible, often with a clear emphasis on throughput. That pressure does not exist in the abstract. It is felt in courtrooms where Immigration Judges are expected to manage heavy dockets under increasingly compressed timelines. Within that environment, limiting closing arguments is a way to shorten hearings. But shortening hearings has consequences.

Closing argument is one of the few structured moments where counsel can synthesize the record, address credibility, and ensure that the legal framework is properly applied. Removing that step does not simply make proceedings more efficient, it increases the likelihood that decisions are made without full engagement with the record. The practical effect is a system where speed begins to take priority over deliberation.

From a litigation standpoint, that shift is significant. Immigration proceedings are adversarial by design. They rely on both parties to frame the issues, test the evidence, and guide the adjudicator’s analysis. When those opportunities are limited, the process moves away from adversarial adjudication and toward something far more constrained.

These cases involve individuals who may be seeking protection from persecution or other serious harm. The outcome of a single hearing can determine whether a person is removed from the United States. In that context, procedural limitations should not be viewed as minor adjustments. They directly affect the ability of counsel to fully present the case and to create a record that can be meaningfully reviewed on appeal.

Framing closing arguments as discretionary, and conditioning them on a later showing of prejudice, signals a broader shift in priorities. The question practitioners and everyone how cares and respect due process it is whether it moves the system further away from full and fair adjudication.

Practical Considerations for Practitioners

In light of this decision, practitioners should:

• Request the opportunity to present closing argument on the record;

• If denied, specify the legal and factual issues that would have been addressed;

• Tie the request to due process, credibility determinations, burden of proof, and legal complexity;

• Preserve the issue explicitly for appellate review 

  
  

Conclusion

Closing arguments are not a procedural formality. They are a critical component of effective advocacy and a necessary step in ensuring that the evidentiary record is properly understood and applied.

By conditioning their availability on a showing of prejudice, Matter of A-M-F-Z- imposes a meaningful limitation on a respondent’s ability to fully present and develop the case—both at the trial level and on appeal. That limitation warrants close attention from practitioners and adjudicators alike.

#Immigrationlaw #BIA #Removalproceedings #immigrationattorney #abogadodeinmigracion #immigrationlegalanalysis