Form I 290bEdit
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, is a key tool in the U.S. immigration process. It is the formal mechanism by which a person or their legal representative challenges a decision made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies, most often the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) or related DHS components, or seeks a review of that decision through a higher tribunal. The form can be used to file an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals or to request a motion to reopen or reconsider the decision with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) or, in certain contexts, to pursue a review in the federal courts. In short, I-290B is the formal vehicle for asking that a decision be re-examined, either on the merits of the case or on the procedural handling of the case.
Form I-290B sits at the boundary between executive agency decisions and the rule of law. On one hand, it preserves due process by enabling review of potentially erroneous determinations. On the other hand, it acts as a gatekeeping device to ensure that appeals and motions are grounded in new evidence or legal arguments that merit reconsideration, rather than a routine loophole to delay immigration outcomes. Supporters of a pro-market, limited-government approach emphasize that I-290B helps correct genuine mistakes without expanding the rights of entrants beyond what due process requires, while also discouraging frivolous or repetitive filings that clog the system.
What Form I-290B Covers
I-290B is used for two broad purposes: appeals of unfavorable decisions and motions to reopen or reconsider existing decisions. Appeals route the matter to a higher authority for a full or partial review of the underlying decision, while motions to reopen or reconsider ask the same body to revisit the decision in light of new facts or a change in the law. Typical areas subject to I-290B filings include denials of asylum applications, denials of family-based or employment-based petitions, and other DHS determinations where a formal review path exists. The form also serves as a means to challenge procedural handling when the applicant believes the agency misapplied the governing rules or failed to consider relevant evidence. In the immigration law ecosystem, related terms include Asylum, Family-based immigrant visa, Employment-based immigrant visa, and Naturalization.
Filing and Process
Filing Form I-290B requires the claimant to identify the decision being appealed or the motion being filed, provide a concise legal argument or a factual explanation for reopening or reconsideration, and attach any new or material evidence not previously presented. The filing is directed to the appropriate appellate body—the Board of Immigration Appeals for most appeals and the Administrative Appeals Office for many motions—along with any supporting documentation and a brief that makes the case for review. Because the form operates across different agencies and procedural tracks, the exact requirements can vary by the type of decision and the forum involved; applicants should consult the instructions for I-290B and the relevant agency rules for precise guidance. See also the rules governing the appellate process in immigration law, such as those governing the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The process often involves a strict record on appeal, rather than a new hearing. In many cases, the reviewing body examines the record as it stood at the time of the original decision, and only accepts new evidence if it is appropriately submitted with the motion or appeal. This structure aims to balance due process with administrative efficiency, reducing the potential for endless re-litigation while still providing a path to remedy wrongful outcomes. The pathway is linked to broader concepts in administrative law, including the duties of agencies to consider all material facts and the standards by which decisions are judged, as discussed in relation to Administrative law and Due process.
Deadlines, Jurisdiction, and Practical Considerations
Deadlines for filing an I-290B are established by the governing regulations and the decision notice. In many cases, the time window to file an appeal or motion is measured in weeks—often around a month from the date of the decision—but the exact period depends on the forum (AAO, BIA, or, in some instances, federal court review) and the manner of service. Because deadlines can hinge on the type of decision and the method by which it was served, applicants should consult the specific instructions accompanying the decision and the I-290B guidance. Jurisdiction may be chained to the type of petition or application at issue and to the reviewing body identified in the decision notice; this is why the form is paired with references to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Board of Immigration Appeals or the Administrative Appeals Office.
Costs and fees related to I-290B filings can vary. In some instances, filing the notice itself may be without a separate fee, while in other contexts a fee schedule applies, or the underlying petition may carry its own costs. Applicants should refer to the latest fee schedule published by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and to the instructions for I-290B to determine any charges and the method of payment.
Controversies and Debates
Debates surrounding Form I-290B tend to map onto broader conversations about immigration policy and regulatory governance. Supporters of a streamlined system argue that I-290B is essential for correcting legitimate errors and preventing irreversible harm from a misapplied decision. They contend that a transparent, rules-based appeals framework protects the integrity of the admissions and enforcement process, while deterring abuse by requiring new evidence or new legal theories to justify another round of review. Proponents often stress that a well-functioning I-290B process discourages ad hoc second-guessing of agency determinations and helps keep the system predictable for applicants and employers alike.
Critics, including those who emphasize reducing administrative friction or who favor stricter controls on immigration, view the I-290B pathway as a potential vehicle for delays and prolonged uncertainty. They argue that the process can be exploited to forestall deportation or to wear down agencies through protracted litigation, especially in cases involving unsubstantiated or repetitive appeals. In this view, reforms might focus on tightening what constitutes a valid appeal or motion to reopen, clarifying the standards for new evidence, speeding up adjudication times, and limiting repetitive filings that do not add substantial legal or factual merit. Additionally, debates arise over how to balance due process with the need to prevent abuses that frustrate lawful enforcement and resource allocation.
From a policy perspective aligned with a market-minded, rule-of-law outlook, the emphasis is often on keeping the I-290B process fair, predictable, and accountable. Supporters argue for clear criteria that distinguish genuine ground for review from opportunistic delay, while ensuring that mistakes in agency decisions can be corrected without imposing excessive costs on the system or on applicants who earnestly seek a legitimate remedy. Critics sometimes accuse the system of being overly procedural; the pragmatic response is to tailor reforms that preserve due process while accelerating legitimate outcomes and reducing backlogs, without sacrificing the core principle that government decisions should be subject to meaningful review when legal standards or factual determinations are misapplied.