The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has issued guidance for Immigration Judges (IJs) on the circumstances when they are permitted to consider an incomplete Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, abandoned or waived. Matter of C-A-R-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 13 (BIA 2025). In this decision, a pro se asylum applicant made three separate attempts to submit I-589 applications to the immigration court; all were rejected for failure to properly answer each of the questions on the form. On the fourth attempt, the I-589 was finally accepted by the IJ. However, the judge rejected the supporting declaration because it did not contain a proper certificate of translation or the original Spanish-language version of the document. The IJ further found that a supporting statement was a required part of the I-589 and thus deemed the entire asylum application waived and abandoned.  

The BIA reversed on appeal, finding that a supporting statement was not a “constituent part” of the I-589. The BIA noted that it is within the IJ’s authority to set deadlines for the acceptance of evidence, and that the IJ was entitled to reject the supporting statement for failure to comply with the requirements of the immigration court practice manual. However, the IJ erred in finding that this meant that the entire I-589 was abandoned and waived. The IJ was entitled to consider the absence of supporting evidence when evaluating the merits of the I-589, however, the IJ erred in finding that this necessarily meant that the chance to apply for relief had been abandoned and waived by the respondent.  

The BIA reiterated that, under 8 CFR § 1208.3(c)(3), a Form I-589 is considered incomplete if it (1) lacks a response to each question on the form, (2) is unsigned, or (3) is missing required materials. The BIA confirmed that “required materials” do not include a declaration. For regulatory purposes, “a response to each of the questions” means that every question must be answered specifically and responsively, but not necessarily that every space on the form must be filled. In a footnote, the BIA clarified that blank spaces are permissible when it is not necessary to use every line to fully respond to a question. For example, an applicant who has no children may leave blank the sections requesting details about children. Conversely, applicants should use continuation pages where the space provided on the form is insufficient to provide a full response. See Form I-589, Supplements A and B (Mar. 1, 2023). Notably, the BIA went beyond the regulations to cite commentary regarding U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s justification for promulgating the I-589 and to stress the importance of the applicant’s providing specific, legally relevant details to their claim.

Pointers for Practitioners:  

• The key takeaway from this case is that each I-589 must include a specific, responsive answer to each question on the form. While the BIA notes in a footnote that it may be acceptable to leave certain inapplicable spaces blank (e.g., the question on the form that asks about arrests in the United States), CLINIC advises practitioners to write “not applicable” or “n/a” instead of leaving any space empty. Practitioners should also avoid responding to narrative questions — such as those about harm in the home country — with "please see attached declaration.” Instead, the practitioner should provide detailed answers to each question directly on the form. CLINIC will soon publish an annotated I-589 with examples of how questions can be answered in ways that are specific and responsive.
   
• Practitioners should not count on the availability of continuances to correct defective I-589s. Note that while the respondent in C-A-R-R- was provided multiple opportunities to correct his I-589, not every IJ will proceed in that way. IJs will be under pressure by the Trump administration to move cases along their docket, and it is highly unlikely that multiple opportunities for corrections will be provided.
   
• Volunteers at pro se asylum workshops must be especially attuned to these requirements. Limited appearances are permissible under the regulations for individuals who are authorized to practice before EOIR and are providing document assistance to pro se respondents as long as they submit Form EOIR-61. 8 CFR §§ 1003.17(b), 1003.38(g)(2). These practitioners must be especially mindful to “get it right” the first time as the applicant might not have the ability to argue orally for a second chance or to fix the I-589 on their own. Partially Accredited Representatives should not assist with pro se I-589s for individuals in removal proceedings, as they are not authorized to practice before the immigration court.
   
• Practitioners should remember the importance of submitting a detailed declaration in support of the claim, including the language and certificates of translation requirements laid out in chapter 3.3 of the Immigration Court Practice Manual. While the respondent in C-A-R-R- did get a remand for consideration of his I-589, this does not mean that his failure to submit a proper statement was without consequences. While the I-589 itself was not deemed waived, the BIA made clear that the IJ is free to consider the lack of supporting statement as reflecting poorly on the merits of his claim. Practitioners must pay attention to any deadlines for evidentiary submissions set by the IJ, as a detailed declaration will be necessary to set forth the best possible claim for the non-citizen. 
   
• The importance of carefully completing Form I-589 with specific, responsive answers to each question has only increased in light of EOIR PM 25-28, issued on April 11, 2025. Under this policy, IJs are allowed to pretermit — or summarily dismiss — an asylum application as legally insufficient without a merits hearing, based solely on the I-589 application. EOIR claims that current regulations and BIA case law require a hearing only when there are disputed factual issues. IJs from across the country have already started to dismiss cases on these grounds. In one reported case, DHS argued that the respondent’s I-589 was not substantively sufficient and pretermission was warranted. In response, the respondent’s attorney emphasized that the application had been properly filed, accepted by the court, and had triggered the 150-day asylum clock, resulting in the issuance of an EAD. Since the court had accepted the form without finding it incomplete or skeletal, pretermission was unwarranted. The attorney also argued that the factual and legal bases of the application had not changed, and therefore did not constitute a new or materially different claim that would fall under the bar in Matter of M-A-F-, 26 I&N Dec. 651, 653 (BIA 2015) (“A subsequent asylum application is properly viewed as a new application if it presents a previously unraised basis for relief or is predicated on a new or substantially different factual basis.”). Finally, the attorney cited Matter of C-A-R-R-, emphasizing that an I-589 need not be exhaustively completed at the time of filing to satisfy the one-year deadline, so long as it is accepted — not rejected — by the court. The IJ agreed and declined to pretermit the application, allowing the case to proceed to a merits hearing.