Following my tradition of writing about events in my legal practice and sharing my professional experiences, I decided to write another article based on what happened in court today, November 13, 2026.

You probably remember the famous Las Vegas slogan:

“What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.”

Filmmakers have a similar saying:

“What happens on set stays on set.”

As someone who has worked in both the legal profession and independent filmmaking, I appreciate the humor behind these expressions.

But what happens in court?

Does what happens in court stay in court?

Not necessarily.

Sometimes what happens during a fifteen-minute hearing follows a person through years of administrative appeals, federal litigation, and subsequent proceedings. Sometimes a few words spoken by an immigration judge can become the foundation of a legal argument before the United States Court of Appeals.

And sometimes the legal battle does not truly begin until the immigration judge announces that the case is over.

Let me explain what happened today.

1. A Routine Master Calendar Hearing That Ended in a Removal Order

This morning, I appeared before an immigration judge in Los Angeles for what was supposed to be a routine master calendar hearing.

For readers unfamiliar with immigration proceedings, a master calendar hearing is generally a preliminary hearing. It is not ordinarily a full examination of an asylum claim.

At this stage, the immigration judge addresses procedural matters, reviews the applications for relief, establishes filing deadlines, and determines how the case will proceed.

The actual examination of an asylum claim normally occurs during an individual merits hearing, when the applicant may testify, present evidence, and respond to questions.

My client’s case involved an application for asylum and related protection from removal.

At the previous master calendar hearing, another attorney had appeared on behalf of my client. I was the primary attorney, but I had not personally attended that hearing.

During that earlier proceeding, the immigration judge instructed counsel to file Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, by the next master calendar hearing.

That hearing was scheduled for November 13, 2026.

We submitted the application electronically on November 10, 2026.

Three days before the hearing.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review subsequently confirmed that the document had been reviewed, approved, and included in the electronic Record of Proceedings.

The application was filed.

The court had the application.

The deadline, according to the hearing instructions, had not expired.

Nevertheless, today’s hearing took an unexpected turn.

The immigration judge determined that the application had not been timely filed and treated the client’s claims for relief as abandoned.

I explained that I had not personally attended the previous master calendar hearing. The judge referred me to the procedure for filing a motion to reconsider.

A removal order followed.

No individual merits hearing.

No substantive examination of the asylum claim.

No opportunity at that hearing to present the complete case.

An immigration proceeding that could have required substantial evidentiary examination ended instead with a procedural ruling.

This is exactly the type of situation that makes appellate litigation important.

2. The Recording Told a Different Story

After the hearing, I reviewed the Digital Audio Recording, commonly called the DAR, from the previous master calendar hearing.

This is one reason I consider hearing recordings essential in immigration litigation.

Attorneys may have different recollections of what occurred. A judge may remember having imposed a particular deadline. A covering attorney may have misunderstood an instruction or failed to communicate it properly.

But the actual recording can establish what was said.

In this case, the recording indicated that the judge required Form I-589 by the next master calendar hearing.

The next master calendar hearing was November 13.

Our electronic filing confirmation established submission on November 10.

I then examined the written removal order.

The order stated that the respondent had failed to file any application within the prescribed time limit and that all claims for relief or protection from removal were therefore abandoned.

That finding raises an obvious question:

How can an application be abandoned for failure to meet a filing deadline when the official court record establishes that the application was submitted before that deadline?

There may be arguments concerning other procedural requirements, the completeness of the application, or the interpretation of the prior hearing instructions.

Those questions must be evaluated against the complete administrative record.

But an adverse ruling cannot be properly analyzed without confronting the actual filing record.

The distinction between what the judge ordered, what was filed, and what the final order says is precisely the kind of issue appellate lawyers investigate.

I intend to challenge this decision before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

And that brings us to the larger problem.

3. Immigration Judges Have Broad Authority, but Not Unlimited Authority

Immigration judges possess significant authority to manage proceedings.

They establish deadlines, regulate the submission of evidence, determine whether applications are procedurally sufficient, rule on motions, and decide whether applicants qualify for relief.

That authority is necessary.

An immigration court cannot function if parties are permitted to ignore every deadline or repeatedly postpone hearings without justification.

But there is an equally important principle:

Judicial discretion is not unlimited, and procedural authority must be exercised within the law.

A missed deadline may have serious consequences.

Depending on the circumstances, an immigration judge may determine that an application or document has been waived or abandoned under applicable regulations.

However, the factual basis for that determination must be accurate, and the legal consequence must be authorized.

An immigration judge’s power to control the calendar is not a license to disregard the procedural record.

Nor does the mere existence of a filing deadline eliminate the need to distinguish between an application for relief and the evidence supporting it.

That distinction has been addressed directly by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

4. Matter of C-A-R-R-: A Personal Declaration Is Not a Constituent Part of an Asylum Application

One particularly important precedent is Matter of C-A-R-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 13 (BIA 2025), decided March 17, 2025.

The case concerned the procedural completeness of Form I-589 and the consequences of failing to submit a supporting personal declaration.

The respondent had previously submitted several asylum applications that lacked substantive answers to required questions.

Those applications were incomplete.

Later, however, the respondent submitted an updated asylum application containing substantive answers to the required questions.

The immigration judge separately required a supporting declaration and established a deadline.

The declaration submitted by the respondent had deficiencies relating to its translation and supporting documentation.

The immigration judge ultimately treated the asylum application as abandoned.

The BIA disagreed.

The Board distinguished between an incomplete asylum application and an otherwise complete application that lacks a supporting declaration.

Its central holding was that a personal declaration is not a constituent part of Form I-589.

That is an important legal distinction.

An application is not the same thing as its supporting evidence

Form I-589 is the formal application for asylum and related protection.

It contains questions addressing the applicant’s identity, immigration history, factual allegations, fear of persecution, and other matters relevant to eligibility.

A personal declaration, by contrast, is a separate narrative document that may explain the applicant’s history in greater detail.

It can be extremely important evidence.

In many asylum cases, the personal declaration is one of the most useful documents in the record.

But being important does not necessarily make it a mandatory constituent element of the application.

The BIA explained that a declaration supplements Form I-589 rather than forming part of the application itself.

Consequently, an immigration judge may not deem an otherwise complete I-589 abandoned solely because the respondent failed to submit a separate declaration.

See Matter of C-A-R-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 13, 16–17 (BIA 2025).

The Board reaffirmed the principle established in Matter of Interiano-Rosa, 25 I&N Dec. 264 (BIA 2010).

What can an immigration judge do if a declaration is missing?

The BIA did not suggest that applicants can disregard court orders.

Quite the opposite.

An immigration judge may require a declaration, establish a deadline for its submission, and enforce that deadline.

If the respondent fails to submit the declaration, the judge may deem the opportunity to submit that particular document waived.

The absence of the declaration may also affect whether the applicant can meet the burden of proof.

In certain circumstances, missing supporting evidence may be decisive when the asylum claim is adjudicated.

But there is a difference between determining that an applicant has failed to establish eligibility for asylum and concluding that the asylum application itself was abandoned.

One determination concerns the merits and sufficiency of the evidence.

The other concerns whether the application remains before the court.

These are legally distinct questions.

Why this precedent matters beyond declarations

C-A-R-R- illustrates a broader principle about procedural precision in immigration litigation.

A judge must identify the actual procedural deficiency and apply the appropriate legal consequence.

An incomplete I-589 may be treated differently from a complete I-589.

A missing declaration may be treated differently from a missing application.

And an application submitted after a deadline may be treated differently from one submitted before that deadline.

These distinctions may appear technical to someone unfamiliar with immigration practice.

But technical distinctions are often the law.

The difference between a missing document and an abandoned application can determine whether someone receives a merits hearing or a removal order.

In my case today, the central issue is even more direct: the judge ordered submission of the I-589 by the next master calendar hearing, and the electronic court record documents its submission before that hearing.

C-A-R-R- is not identical to these circumstances. Its specific holding concerns the effect of a missing declaration on an otherwise complete application.

Nevertheless, it demonstrates why immigration courts must distinguish carefully between different filing requirements and their legal consequences.

5. Arizmendi-Medina v. Garland: When a Filing Deadline Becomes a Due Process Problem

Another important decision is Arizmendi-Medina v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1043 (9th Cir. 2023).

This case involved an immigration judge’s enforcement of an ambiguous filing deadline.

The respondent was attempting to pursue relief, but the circumstances surrounding the deadline, the attempted filing, and the denial of a continuance resulted in the rejection of the application.

The Ninth Circuit examined whether the judge’s handling of the proceedings deprived the respondent of a fundamentally fair opportunity to present the case.

The court found a due process violation under the circumstances before it.

The decision does not stand for the proposition that immigration attorneys may disregard filing deadlines whenever they consider those deadlines inconvenient.

It stands for something more precise.

Procedural rules must be administered in a manner consistent with the right to a fundamentally fair hearing.

A judge’s authority to enforce deadlines remains subject to legal constraints.

This principle is especially important in asylum proceedings.

An adverse procedural determination may expose an individual to removal without the underlying protection claim ever receiving a merits determination.

To be clear, a person does not establish a due process violation merely by receiving an unfavorable ruling. The petitioner must identify a legally cognizable defect and satisfy the applicable requirements, including prejudice where required.

But procedural fairness is not an optional courtesy.

It is part of the legal framework governing removal proceedings.

6. The BIA: Necessary Administrative Review, but Often Frustrating in Practice

The first appellate destination after an immigration judge’s removal order is ordinarily the Board of Immigration Appeals.

The BIA is the highest administrative body within the Department of Justice for interpreting and applying immigration laws in the matters assigned to it.

It reviews immigration judge decisions under regulatory standards of review.

Legal questions generally receive de novo review, while factual findings are reviewed for clear error.

The Board can reverse decisions, sustain appeals, dismiss appeals, and remand cases for further proceedings.

It also issues precedential decisions that immigration judges are generally required to follow, subject to controlling law.

In theory, the BIA provides an important mechanism for correcting administrative errors.

In practice, my professional experience with the BIA has often been frustrating.

I do not regard the BIA as a particularly promising forum in many cases involving disputed immigration judge decisions.

That is a criticism of my experience with the administrative appellate process, not a claim that BIA review never produces favorable results.

Indeed, Matter of C-A-R-R- itself demonstrates that the Board can correct an immigration judge’s legal error and remand a case for further proceedings.

Nevertheless, many BIA appeals involve extensive preparation, considerable legal research, detailed briefs, and prolonged waiting, only to end with the underlying decision affirmed.

Sometimes the Board issues a relatively brief decision.

Under certain circumstances, a single Board member may affirm without issuing a separate opinion.

The result can be disappointing when counsel believes that the administrative record demonstrates a substantial legal error.

Why appeal to the BIA if you have little confidence in it?

This is a question clients sometimes ask.

My answer is straightforward.

Because administrative exhaustion is generally required before federal judicial review.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), federal judicial review of a final removal order ordinarily requires exhaustion of administrative remedies available as of right.

The BIA is therefore not merely another option.

In many cases, it is the necessary procedural stage between immigration court and federal appellate litigation.

That has important strategic consequences.

An appellate attorney should not treat the BIA appeal as a formality.

Arguments must be identified, developed, and preserved.

The administrative record must be examined carefully.

Controlling legal authorities must be presented.

Failure to properly raise an issue at the administrative stage may create substantial problems in a later petition for review.

Even when I believe a particular dispute may ultimately require the intervention of a federal appellate court, the BIA appeal is an essential part of building the record and preserving the legal issues.

7. The Ninth Circuit Is Not Another Immigration Court

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is an Article III federal appellate court.

Its jurisdiction includes federal appeals arising from nine western states and certain territories.

For immigration cases completed in California, qualifying petitions for review generally proceed before the Ninth Circuit.

The difference between immigration court and the Ninth Circuit is fundamental.

Immigration judges conduct administrative proceedings.

They hear testimony, receive evidence, make factual determinations, and adjudicate applications for relief.

The Ninth Circuit ordinarily does not repeat that process.

It reviews the administrative record under federal law.

Its role is to determine whether the agency committed an error that warrants judicial relief.

Those errors may involve legal interpretation, constitutional claims, administrative procedures, or factual determinations subject to the applicable standards of review.

The court does not simply decide whether it would have granted asylum if it had heard the case first.

A petition for review therefore requires a different kind of legal argument.

An attorney must identify what the administrative decision actually says, explain why the decision is legally defective, and demonstrate why the governing standard of review permits the federal court to intervene.

This is precisely the type of work that increasingly defines my legal practice.

8. An Appeal Is Not a Second Opportunity to Tell the Same Story

One of the most common misconceptions about appellate litigation is that an appeal provides another opportunity to present the case from the beginning.

That is generally incorrect.

Consider an asylum case.

Before the immigration judge, the evidence may include testimony about political activities, religious persecution, arrests, threats, detention, or other circumstances relevant to a protection claim.

The judge evaluates that evidence under the applicable legal standards.

If the case proceeds to the BIA, the Board reviews the administrative decision.

If a qualifying final removal order is subsequently challenged in a federal court of appeals, the judicial inquiry becomes narrower in important respects.

The appellate court generally reviews the administrative record rather than conducting a new evidentiary hearing.

New evidence cannot ordinarily be introduced through an ordinary petition for review.

This has a practical consequence that every immigration attorney should understand:

The quality of a future federal appeal often depends on what was preserved in the Immigration Court and before the BIA.

If an attorney fails to identify an error, preserve an objection, develop the record, or properly present an issue administratively, the consequences may become apparent much later.

By that point, correcting the omission may be difficult or impossible.

This is why I believe immigration litigation requires long-term strategic thinking.

The attorney must consider not only the immediate hearing but also the possibility of administrative and judicial review.

9. Oral Argument Before the Ninth Circuit: The Judges Ask the Questions

Federal appellate oral argument is another area that the public frequently misunderstands.

It is not a theatrical presentation.

It is not an opportunity to introduce new witnesses.

And it is not a public meeting in which supporters can speak on behalf of an immigrant.

The judges examine the legal questions raised by the appeal and question the attorneys about the record, precedent, jurisdiction, and competing interpretations of the law.

Sometimes a judge asks a question that appears only indirectly related to the main argument.

Sometimes the most difficult question concerns an issue the attorney regarded as secondary.

Sometimes the court spends much of the argument discussing the consequences of a particular interpretation rather than the underlying facts.

A federal appellate attorney must therefore be prepared to defend the legal position, address weaknesses, and respond directly to judicial questions.

The best oral argument is not necessarily the most passionate one.

It is often the one in which the attorney understands the case thoroughly enough to provide concise and accurate answers under pressure.

I have appeared for oral argument before the Ninth Circuit, and that experience reinforced my appreciation for the difference between trial-level advocacy and appellate litigation.

The objective is not to repeat every argument from the brief.

It is to assist the court in resolving the legal questions presented.

10. Why a Successful Ninth Circuit Appeal May Not End the Case

Even when a petitioner succeeds before the Ninth Circuit, that does not necessarily mean the person immediately receives asylum or permanent residence.

Frequently, the federal court grants a petition for review and remands the case to the agency for further proceedings.

The BIA or immigration judge may then reconsider the matter under the correct legal standard.

Additional hearings may be required.

The government may continue opposing the application.

The outcome may remain uncertain.

A successful appeal can therefore produce an important legal victory without immediately resolving the underlying immigration case.

This distinction matters when discussing legal strategy with clients.

Winning an appeal and winning the underlying immigration case are not necessarily the same thing.

An appellate victory may restore the opportunity for a fair hearing.

It may require the agency to correct a legal error.

It may invalidate a particular administrative determination.

But it does not automatically establish every element necessary for immigration relief.

Attorneys should explain this distinction before clients commit substantial resources to appellate proceedings.

11. The Economics of Immigration Appeals: Time, Money, and Uncertainty

There is another reality that deserves discussion.

Immigration appeals can be expensive.

A serious appellate matter may require reviewing hundreds or thousands of pages of an administrative record, listening to hearing recordings, researching statutory and regulatory questions, analyzing precedential decisions, and preparing detailed written submissions.

Federal appellate litigation can involve further briefing, procedural motions, stay requests, and oral argument.

The work requires considerable time.

The results are uncertain.

And even a favorable decision may mean that the case returns to the immigration court rather than ending with a grant of relief.

This creates a difficult question for both clients and attorneys:

When is an appeal worth pursuing?

The answer should not be based solely on the client’s disappointment with the result.

An appeal should be evaluated according to the existence of reviewable errors, the applicable standard of review, the procedural record, the available remedies, and the practical consequences of success.

Some cases present genuine and substantial legal questions.

Others involve unfavorable factual findings that may be very difficult to overturn.

There is no benefit in creating unrealistic expectations.

At the same time, an attorney should not dismiss a legitimate appellate issue merely because the administrative process has been difficult.

That balance requires professional judgment.

12. Why I Am Increasingly Focused on Federal Appellate Litigation

My practice has increasingly moved toward immigration appeals and federal litigation.

I remain involved in immigration proceedings, but appellate work presents a different set of intellectual and professional challenges.

I enjoy examining legal questions that may have been overlooked or improperly resolved during administrative proceedings.

I enjoy reviewing court recordings and comparing what was said in the hearing with what appears in the written order.

I enjoy researching published decisions and developing arguments grounded in statutes, regulations, and controlling precedent.

Sometimes the decisive issue is not hidden in a complicated factual record.

Sometimes it is remarkably simple.

A judge establishes a deadline.

An attorney files before that deadline.

The written decision nevertheless states that nothing was filed on time.

If that is what the administrative record establishes, there is a legal issue worth presenting for review.

Of course, not every apparent inconsistency results in reversal.

The complete record matters, and appellate adjudicators may identify considerations that are not immediately apparent from the written order alone.

But these are precisely the questions that appellate litigation is designed to address.

The work requires patience, legal research, skepticism, and the willingness to challenge a decision through the proper procedural channels.

It also requires acknowledging that judges, like attorneys, can make mistakes.

The judicial system recognizes this possibility.

That is why appellate review exists.

13. What Happens Next in Today’s Case?

I intend to pursue an appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

The principal issue will concern the finding that the application for relief was not filed within the deadline established by the immigration judge.

The administrative record includes the prior hearing recording, the electronic filing confirmation, and the written removal order.

Those materials will be central to evaluating the procedural ruling.

I will not identify the client or discuss confidential details of the asylum claim in this article.

The BIA will determine whether the immigration judge’s ruling should stand.

I do not know what the Board will decide.

And if administrative review does not resolve the dispute, further judicial review may be considered if legally available.

But the broader lesson extends beyond this particular case.

Immigration litigation does not end intellectually or legally merely because an immigration judge announces an adverse decision.

The next question is whether that decision is supported by the record and consistent with the governing law.

Sometimes it is.

Sometimes it is not.

And sometimes answering that question requires an administrative appeal followed by federal judicial review.

Conclusion: What Happens in Court Does Not Stay in Court

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

What happens on a film set stays on the set.

But what happens in immigration court?

It can follow someone through the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Ninth Circuit, and years of additional proceedings.

It can determine whether a person receives an opportunity to present an asylum claim.

It can produce a removal order.

It can also create a question of federal law that requires review by appellate judges.

The process is not perfect.

The BIA can be frustrating. Federal appeals can take considerable time. Even a successful petition for review may result only in another round of administrative proceedings.

Nevertheless, appellate review remains an essential safeguard in a legal system where administrative decisions can have profound consequences.

An immigration judge’s ruling is not automatically legally correct simply because it was pronounced from the bench.

The law must still support it.

The record must still support it.

And when either is in question, appellate review may be necessary.

That is what appellate courts are for.

And that is why, in immigration litigation, what happens in court does not always stay in court.

Sometimes it becomes the beginning of a much larger legal battle.

About the Author

Ernest Goodman is a New York-licensed attorney based in the Los Angeles area. His practice focuses on federal appellate litigation, immigration law, intellectual property law, and civil litigation.

He represents clients in immigration proceedings, administrative appeals before the Board of Immigration Appeals, and petitions for review before federal courts of appeals, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Disclaimer: This article reflects the author’s professional observations and personal experience. The discussion of the November 13, 2026 hearing is based on the author’s understanding of the available procedural record. The underlying matter has not been resolved on appeal. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice or a guarantee of any particular outcome.