How do individual hearings work in 2026 for asylum, protection under the Convention Against Torture, cancellation of removal, and other forms of relief in U.S. immigration court?
How does the hearing begin? When are motions decided? How does evidence become part of the record? What is the difference between direct and cross-examination? And who can be more dangerous to the case — the government attorney or the judge?
An individual hearing, also called a merits hearing, is the central stage of an immigration court case. In most cases, this is where the outcome is actually decided.
An individual hearing can generally be divided into six main stages: formalities, unresolved procedural issues, admission of evidence, testimony of the respondent and witnesses, closing arguments, and the judge's decision.
Below, we go through each stage and discuss practical mistakes that can damage even an otherwise strong case.
1. What Is an Individual Hearing?
2. The Six Main Stages
3. Stage One: Formalities
4. Stage Two: Motions and Unresolved Issues
5. Stage Three: Admission of Evidence
6. Stage Four: Direct Examination
7. When the Judge Starts Asking Questions
8. Cross-Examination
9. Witnesses and Experts
10. Stage Five: Closing Argument
11. Stage Six: The Judge's Decision
12. What Happens With an Appeal?
13. How to Behave During the Hearing
14. Conclusion
An individual hearing is the hearing on the merits of the case.
This is where the court determines whether the respondent is removable from the United States and, if so, whether the respondent qualifies for protection or some other form of relief from removal.
In many cases, the removability issue is resolved earlier at a master calendar hearing. The individual hearing then focuses primarily on whether the respondent qualifies for the relief being requested.
That relief may include asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, a waiver, or another form of immigration relief.
The hearing may last several hours, a full day, or extend across multiple hearing dates.
Before the individual hearing, the court usually deals with organizational and procedural matters: what relief is being requested, which allegations are admitted or denied, filing deadlines, and the date of the merits hearing.
In some cases, the case may end before a full merits hearing — for example, if the judge pretermits an application. But in most cases, the individual hearing remains the central stage of the process.
An individual hearing can generally be divided into six parts.
Stage One — formalities. The judge confirms the respondent's identity, identifies the representatives for both sides, explains the procedure, and places participants under oath.
Stage Two — unresolved procedural issues. The court addresses motions, continuances, amendments to applications, and other issues that need to be resolved before testimony begins.
Stage Three — evidence. The judge goes through the documents and other materials, marks them as exhibits, and considers objections.
Stage Four — testimony. The respondent and witnesses are questioned on direct examination and cross-examination. The judge may also ask questions.
Stage Five — closing arguments. The parties explain what the evidence established, how the law applies, and why the judge should rule in their favor.
Stage Six — decision. The judge may issue a decision immediately or provide a written decision later.
At the beginning of the hearing, the judge confirms the identity of the respondent, the respondent's attorney, and the DHS attorney.
The judge then determines what issues remain to be decided.
The respondent is warned about the consequences of false testimony and, in an asylum case, the consequences of filing a knowingly fabricated application.
The respondent, interpreter, and witnesses are then placed under oath.
Sometimes the court also addresses additional witnesses at this stage, especially if there are problems with the witness list. The judge may want to know exactly what relevant information each witness will provide.
If a witness has nothing legally significant to add, the judge may refuse to spend hearing time on that witness.
Before formal testimony begins, the judge, the government attorney, and defense counsel may also discuss the case informally.
The judge may identify weaknesses in the case and, in some situations, suggest an alternative such as voluntary departure if legally available.
That does not necessarily mean the case is already lost. But it can reveal which issues the judge considers most serious.
After the initial formalities, the court normally addresses motions and other matters that must be resolved before testimony begins.
These may include motions:
This stage can be critically important.
Some motions can end the case before the respondent ever begins testifying.
If the respondent has an attorney, counsel usually handles the government's legal arguments.
If there is no attorney, the respondent will need to make those arguments personally.
If the government raises a complicated new issue for the first time during the hearing, the respondent may request additional time or a continuance to prepare a response.
Ignoring the issue and hoping to deal with it later is usually a poor strategy.
If the case has not been continued or terminated, the court moves to the evidence.
The judge generally goes through the submitted materials, marks them as exhibits, and considers objections from the parties.
The government may object to documents because of:
At this stage, it is important to distinguish admissibility from weight.
The question is not necessarily whether the judge believes a particular photograph or medical document. The immediate question is whether the material can become part of the record at all.
The judge evaluates its persuasive value later.
This distinction matters enormously.
If an important document never becomes part of the record, relying on it later becomes much more difficult.
That is why admission of evidence sometimes requires a real fight.
If there is a defect that can be corrected but not immediately, requesting a continuance may be necessary.
The respondent's testimony is the central part of the hearing.
The respondent explains who he or she is, what relief is being requested, and why the requirements of the law are satisfied.
The testimony should be detailed, realistic, and consistent with the written declaration, documentary evidence, and testimony of other witnesses.
On direct examination, questions are generally asked by the respondent's attorney. If the respondent does not have counsel, the judge may take a much larger role in asking questions.
A strong direct examination is not simply a checklist of facts.
The questions should allow the court to understand the respondent's story as a coherent narrative.
Usually the testimony begins with basic context: who the respondent is, what relief is being requested, and why.
The questioning then moves through the important facts, often in chronological order.
Direct examination can take several hours and, in complicated cases, may continue over multiple hearing dates.
An attorney cannot simply tell the respondent what answer to give or provide a script during testimony.
Preparation should focus on understanding the case and the difficult issues, not memorizing answers word for word.
Immigration judges have broad authority to control the hearing and ask their own questions.
In some cases, the judge asks only occasional clarifying questions.
In others, the judge may effectively conduct a substantial part of the examination personally.
In our practice, we have had hearings where the judge questioned the respondent for approximately an hour and a half.
Hard questions do not automatically mean the judge has already decided to deny the case.
In fact, detailed questions often mean that the judge is actively trying to understand what happened.
For that reason, turning every uncomfortable question into a confrontation with the judge is usually counterproductive.
If the facts are real and support the case, the judge's questions are another opportunity to explain the story.
There are, of course, situations where the nature of the questioning may support an argument that the judge was biased. That issue may become relevant later on appeal.
But during the hearing itself, the primary goal is to answer calmly and use the opportunity to be heard.
After direct examination comes cross-examination.
For many respondents, this is the most difficult part of the hearing.
The DHS attorney asks the questions.
The government's goal is not always to catch the respondent in a direct lie. Effective cross-examination can be much more subtle.
The government attorney may obtain a series of individual “yes” answers and then combine them into a legal argument that changes the entire picture of the case.
For example, in cases involving military service, the questions might include:
Is it true that Russia drafts men of military age? Yes.
Is it true that large numbers of people were called up during mobilization? Yes.
Is it true that you were not politically active before the war? Yes.
The government may then argue that there was no individualized persecution and that the respondent was simply being drafted along with everyone else.
Each individual answer may seem harmless. The conclusion built from all of them can be extremely damaging.
Trying to avoid direct answers usually makes the situation worse. The judge may conclude that the respondent simply does not want to answer an uncomfortable question.
The government may also use impeachment evidence — material intended to challenge the truthfulness of a particular answer.
For example, if an old DHS record contains a statement that contradicts the respondent's current testimony, the government attorney may introduce it at the right moment.
After cross-examination, defense counsel generally has an opportunity to conduct redirect examination and address problems that arose during cross.
The court may also hear testimony from witnesses.
These may include eyewitnesses, relatives, acquaintances, or expert witnesses.
The process is generally similar: direct examination, cross-examination, redirect, and possible questions from the judge.
But the judge does not have to hear every person simply because that person appears on a witness list.
If the testimony adds nothing legally relevant, the judge may decide not to spend hearing time on it.
This is especially true when a witness only wants to say that the respondent is a good, kind, hardworking person, but the respondent's character has nothing to do with the legal issue before the court.
Experts present a similar issue.
If an expert has already submitted a detailed written report and would only repeat that report orally, the judge may decide that live testimony is unnecessary.
A witness therefore should not merely exist. The witness should help answer a specific question in the case.
After testimony is complete, the parties move to closing arguments.
A closing argument is not a complete retelling of the case.
The purpose is to explain which key facts were established, how the law applies to those facts, and why the result should favor that party.
Defense counsel may also address problems that arose during the hearing.
For example, if the respondent confused a date or phrased an answer poorly, counsel may explain why that mistake does not undermine the overall credibility of the claim.
Counsel may also address a legal issue that became especially important during testimony.
But a closing argument is argument, not a new evidence stage.
If an important fact never entered the record through testimony or evidence, counsel generally cannot simply add that fact for the first time during closing.
The difference is simple:
during testimony, you explain what happened;
during closing argument, you explain why those established facts mean that you should win.
A closing argument cannot be fully prepared in advance because no one knows exactly what new issues will arise during cross-examination.
That is why experience and the ability to analyze what happened during the hearing are especially important at this stage.
After closing arguments, the final stage is the judge's decision.
Sometimes the judge issues the decision immediately in court and explains the facts, applicable law, and result on the record.
In other cases, the judge takes the matter under advisement and later issues a written decision.
The second approach is fairly common in complicated cases.
The decision should explain not only who won, but why.
For example, in an asylum case, the judge may need to address past persecution, future fear, credibility, government involvement, nexus, and other elements that were actually disputed.
If there are inconsistencies, the decision should show how the judge evaluated them.
A simple statement that “I believe the respondent” or “I do not believe the respondent” may be insufficient for meaningful appellate review.
That is why even after hearing the words “asylum granted,” it may still be too early to relax completely.
The case needs to be won in a way that can survive a possible DHS appeal.
After the decision, the parties must decide what to do about appeal rights.
If the respondent loses and does not intend to leave immediately, preserving the right to appeal is usually extremely important.
But appeal issues can also arise after a partial victory.
For example, the judge may grant one form of relief but deny another.
The respondent then needs to decide whether to preserve the right to challenge the denied portion.
This is not a meaningless technicality.
A wrong decision during the final minutes of the hearing can close off future procedural options.
Several rules sound obvious, but respondents repeatedly violate them in practice.
Do not interrupt. Let the judge, government attorney, your attorney, and the interpreter finish speaking.
If your attorney makes an objection, stop and wait until the judge decides whether you should answer.
If you are using an interpreter, use the interpreter consistently. Do not spend half the hearing speaking through the interpreter and then suddenly switch to English.
If the interpretation is wrong, you do not understand something, or you cannot hear properly, say so immediately.
If you do not understand a question, do not guess. Ask for the question to be repeated or rephrased.
Do not unnecessarily argue with the judge or the government attorney.
Even if a question seems ridiculous, answer the question.
In one of our cases, a respondent who had been stabbed was asked, “Did it hurt?” Instead of simply answering yes, he began arguing that the question itself was stupid.
He may genuinely have thought so. But to everyone else in the courtroom, it looked like an attempt to avoid answering a direct question.
Answer exactly what you were asked.
If you are asked what time you arrived, give the time.
If you are asked how you got there, say how you got there.
If you are specifically asked to describe what happened in detail, then give the details.
This is especially important on cross-examination.
If you do not know or do not remember, say so.
Do not invent an exact date simply because you think the judge expects a specific number.
It is better to honestly say that you remember the date approximately than to guess and create a contradiction yourself.
Prepare, but do not memorize.
You should know your declaration, your documents, and the important dates. But testimony memorized word for word often sounds exactly like memorized testimony.
Finally, remember that everyone in the courtroom is human.
The judge, government attorney, interpreter, and lawyers all have personalities, habits, strengths, weaknesses, and moods.
Remain calm, respectful, and professional.
You are not in court to demand special treatment. You are there to prove that the law entitles you to the specific protection or relief you are requesting.
An individual hearing is not simply one long conversation with an immigration judge. It is a sequence of separate stages, and each stage can affect the outcome of the case.
A motion can end the case before testimony begins.
A mistake in submitting evidence can keep an important document out of the record.
A poor answer on direct or cross-examination can create a credibility problem.
And a strong closing argument can help the judge understand issues that became unclear during testimony.
The most important part of the hearing remains the respondent's own testimony.
An attorney can prepare the case, ask questions, make legal arguments, and protect the record. But the attorney cannot testify in place of the client.
So the most practical advice remains simple: know your case, listen carefully, do not rush, do not guess, do not argue unnecessarily, and answer honestly and directly.
← Home, Russian version, Blog