For two-and-a-half months since the election and for what seems like years before that, we’ve been hearing from Donald Trump and his surrogates about how they would deport millions of people, block refugees, end birth-right citizenship, and implement a campaign of “shock and awe” against those in our country illegally. Earlier this week, Mr. Trump was finally sworn in, and his specific agenda is starting to take shape. In some ways, it is easier to deal with his actual policies than to wonder and worry about what he might do. Here, we’ll discuss some of the President’s initial executive orders and how they might affect asylum seekers and other non-citizens in the US of A.
Declaring a National Emergency at the U.S.-Mexico Border: Mr. Trump wants to stop anyone from entering unlawfully at the U.S. border or requesting asylum there. To that end, he ended the use of CBP-One, an app that allowed asylum seekers to make an appointment at the border (and which helped dramatically limit the number of asylum seekers at the border by the end of Mr. Biden’s term). He is also declaring Mexican cartels and certain gangs to be a terrorist threat, which will help justify using the military to secure the border. What exactly the military will do, and whether they have the capacity for such a mission, we will see. We will also see the return of the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forced asylum seekers to litigate their asylum cases from Mexico. It sounds like the Mexican government may not be on board with this idea, so how the plan will play out, we will again have to wait to see. Of course, these executive orders (and many others) are subject to legal challenges, which may delay or limit their implementation.
Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship: The 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” While this clause seems pretty self evident, the President hopes to end citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants. As I understand it, the argument hinges on the intent of the Amendment (to protect African Americans) and the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which leaves some wiggle room for certain people born in the U.S. to parents who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. The most well-known example here are children of diplomats. The Administration’s arguments seem weak, but given the make-up of the Supreme Court, I guess nothing is impossible. If Mr. Trump succeeds, we will potentially have generations of people born in our country who will not belong here or anywhere else, which seems to me a recipe for problems.
Suspend Refugee Resettlement: Last time he was in office, Mr. Trump dramatically reduced the number of refugees resettled in the United States. Now the President has ordered a halt to refugee resettlement for at least four months, and I suppose this policy will be extended. Sadly, when the U.S. shuts its doors, other nations follow suit, and given the unprecedented number of refugees and displaced people in the world, we can expect that many innocents will suffer.
Encourage Federal-State Cooperation: The President has directed DHS to reach agreement with states so that police officers can basically act as immigration officers. Many states will decline this invitation. For those that cooperate, we can expect that immigrant communities will become less willing to work with law enforcement, likely making everyone more unsafe.
Reversing President Biden’s (and Other Former Presidents’) Policies: The executive orders rescind a number of prior rules, including paroling large number of people into the United States (Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Cubans, and others), limiting Temporary Protected Status, depriving “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funds, ending funding to non-profits that assist immigrants, and denying public benefits to “illegal aliens.” On this last point, “illegal alien” is not a term in the Immigration & Nationality Act, and so it is not clear (at least to me) who is actually targeted under this provision.
Work Permits: One executive order states that DHS should ensure “that employment authorization is provided in a manner consistent with section 274A of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1324a), and that employment authorization is not provided to any unauthorized alien in the United States.” Does this mean that asylum seekers who arrived at the border without a visa will now be denied employment authorization?
Hiring More Agents: The President orders that DHS “shall take all appropriate action to significantly increase the number of agents and officers available to perform the duties of immigration officers.” Where the money will come from for new hires, the order does not say. Also, hiring new agents takes months or years, and so the impact of such an order will not be immediate.
Expedited Removal and Detention: The President directs that recent entrants should be subject to expedited removal, which would allow people who crossed into the U.S. recently to be removed with less due process protection. To facilitate these removals, the President directs that enforcement agencies should “allocate all legally available resources or establish contracts to construct, operate, control, or use facilities to detain removable aliens.” Again, I do not know if there is money for this, and it seems like another long-term project.
I guess that’s enough for now. This is a moving target–orders are being issued, legal challenges filed, more orders will presumably be coming. It will take some time to get a sense of how people on the ground are being affected. For now, it is best to remain calm, keep an eye on the news, and take reasonable precautions so you are ready for whatever may come.
My asylum case is pending with new jersey asylum office. And i just received an interview notice for new jersey asylum office. But after i got notice. I moved and changed my address to new york on uscis change of address . Should i go to asylum interview still and tell them i moved to ny or they will still take my interview in new jersey or at interview they move my case to new york asylum office.
They may force you to go to the NYC office, if that office has jurisdiction over your case – not all addresses in NY are covered by the NYC office; some are covered by NJ (and NJ is by far the better office). You can check your asylum office if you follow the link under Resources called Asylum Office Locator and entering your zip code. Maybe they will allow you to interview in NJ, but normally, if you live in the area covered by the NYC office, the NJ office will not interview you. Take care, Jason
Just curious,
When did you received your interview notice? And which year did you applied? Did you expedite?
I am still pending for many years and see if the new administration already started doing interviews
At least in the Virginia office, they are busy – this seems to be an experiment to see whether officers can interview 8 cases per week. They are giving little notice prior to the interview, which is making it more difficult, and so if you have an old case, it is good to make sure you have all your evidence, so you are ready if they call you. Take care, Jason
Dear Mr. Jason!
Firstly thankyou for being doing this for more then many years now, your consistency to write and especially answering too many questions especially repetitions takes lots of patience. Hats off on it
I know i cannot provide specifics regarding cases, but let me put a scenario here
If the couple both are LPR Husband being primary Asylee and Wife as deriative asylee (being married more then 10 years)
Husband became LPR in 2021
Wife Became LPR in 2024 (per green card issue dates)
Husband will be applying somewhat in 2026 for citizenship once he becomes citizen
Wife will be almost 3 years as LPR
When can she apply for Citizenship (from path of married to citizen who became citizen in end of 2026)
Given that they already were married long ago
Will it overlook the time of 3 years after husband becomes citizen?
They both have to wait 5 years from the date listed on the GC (though they can mail the application for citizenship up to 90 days before the 5-year anniversary, assuming they are otherwise eligible). The only way to get citizenship after 3 years is where the person gets her GC based on a marriage petition (not based on status as a dependent spouse). Take care, Jason
Hi Jason. I have an asylum-based green card. I know that in theory it is considered a misdemeanor not to carry the green card all the time. However, most green card holders never carry their GC fearing they can lose it. Instead, they keep it in a safe place at home. I do the same and carry a paper copy and a digital copy in my cell phone with me all the time. Is that enough? I also carry my real state ID. Can I get in trouble with random checks? If lost, apparently it takes a whole year to get a new one and that could be bad for me since I would have to cancel several trips including work trips. Thanks
I don’t carry it on myself. Too risky to lose it. Driver’s License is enough for everyday purpose within the country. Jason can comment on it if I’m wrong.
I think it is true that people are technically supposed to carry their original card with them, but I have never heard of anyone getting into trouble for carrying a copy. So I think the risk is small, but I guess if you want to be technically compliant, you should carry the card with you (and hopefully not lose it, as it is a pain to replace). Take care, Jason
1-I Jason, I would like to ask you a question. Could you please talk about the new Grounds of Inadmissibility questions on the New adjustment of status form? Its confusing, let say someone was tortured by the police for political opinion or their social group membership, is this person inadmissibility to adjust status just because she/he was abused or victim of unlawful police detention in their home country? That would have been unfair, imagine someone win asylum but can not adjust status because police unlawfully kidnap and torture you.
2- does this person needs a waiver? even if the person did not commit any crime but was just a victim of police torture?
@confused
who told you about this bs and fake news???? since when if you get detained by your government for a political reason that means it’s a ground of inadmissibility ??? so weird news and i don’t know what’s your source!!!
I am not sure about this, as I have not done a case on this point. But when someone was arrested and that arrest is part of the asylum case, we previously answered the yes/no question as best as we could, wrote “see cover letter” next to the question, and in the cover letter, we explained what happened and that we discussed this in the asylum application. That always worked. Whether something different will happen now, we have to wait and see, but if a waiver is needed, it would be the Refugee Waiver under INA 209(c), which is a very power (and free) waiver. Take care, Jason
@ jason
i think the most common mistake when asylees apply for the i-485 is have you ever arrested before or committed a crime and a lot of people answer no even though while the asylum interview it was mentioned that there were detained only for their political views without any official arrest warrant and later they got out of the detention so in this case many asylees misunderstanding the question on the i-485 application and answer no cause they thought it’s a question related for something criminal or felony not cause they were opposed to the government which is not crime so in this case i guess they can tell that to the USCIS officer during the N-400 interview ? it shouldn’t considered a fraud cause it was mentioned at the asylum interview plus it didn’t affect the decision of i-485 approval because there is nothing say that being detained for being political activist is considered a crime!
This does happen, as applicants often do not view their detention as a lawful arrest. Even so, it is best to answer as you think best (yes or no) and provide an explanation. I think as long as you explain, and USCIS cannot accuse you of trying to hide the arrest/detention, you should be ok. For people who said “no” and did not provide an explanation, they can do so on the N-400 (better late than never), and then if they are asked why they failed to mention the arrest/detention on the I-485, they can explain at that time. Of course, it is better to explain this in the I-485, but the problem should be fixable even at the N-400 stage. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, thank you for your continued support to this community. I have approved asylum and RTD, with pending GC application. I traveled last year with no issues, however I am not sure if it’s safe to travel now under the new administration. My lawyer says that as long as I have a valid RTD I shouldn’t have any issues. What would be your advice? Can they revoke status at port of entry or deport me if they want? I don’t have any grounds of inadmissability.
They have not yet instituted a travel ban, and so you may want to wait to see what happens. However, last time, people with a GC and RTD were ok, and I doubt it will be different this time. You have been granted asylum and a GC under the law, and that status can only be revoked if you committed a fraud in the asylum or violate or GC status (for example, by committing a crime or staying outside the US for too long). Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
There have been announcements that the administration is going to expand the prosecutions for “aiding and abetting illegal immigration under 8 USC 1324, 1322, 1327 etc in order to deter illegal immigration. This means that any person or organization that “helps” an illegal migrant by giving them a ride, renting them a place to stay etc can be prosecuted. 8USC1324 is quite broad and can be interpreted in many ways. What is your opinion about this? Do you think normal US citizens who are in contact with someone illegal or a part of their family could get into trouble? I believe Tom Homan even said that he will be targeting immigrant support organizations and local officials of sanctuary cities using this provision in the INA.
They are trying to criminalize helping others. We will have to see how that is implemented and whether it can stand up to scrutiny. I suspect this is target at the border, but it could be applied to people – including lawyers – in the interior. The Administration seems to have little regard for the law or tradition (witness the order on birthright citizenship), and so I would not be terribly surprised by anything they might do. Take care, Jason
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) don’t typically go around asking for proof of legal status when interacting with others. It’s not a standard part of daily life, and imposing such a practice would create significant societal friction and distrust. For example, landlords don’t usually check immigration status when renting to tenants unless explicitly required by law. Similarly, it would be utterly absurd for friends or family members to ask for legal documentation before offering assistance or inviting someone into their home.
The language of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 is broad, allowing for some amount of discretion in how it is applied. If enforcement agencies or regular citizens focus on certain communities, individuals, or organizations, it increases the likelihood of racial profiling, and possibly violence against certain people, whether intentional or unintentional. Immigrant-heavy communities, particularly those with larger populations of people of color, might face heightened surveillance or scrutiny.
Additionally, many immigrant families in the U.S. are mixed-status, consisting of undocumented individuals, lawful permanent residents (LPRs), naturalized citizens, and U.S.-born members living together. If enforcement disproportionately targets immigrant communities, it could unfairly impact lawful residents and U.S. citizens within those families. Practically speaking, such families would not give their loved ones an ultimatum to leave. This would inevitably create a climate of fear and confusion and making individuals more vulnerable to criminal prosecution.
To prosecute under 8 U.S.C. § 1324, the government would need to prove that the individual knowingly harbored, transported, or aided someone unlawfully present in the U.S. with the intent to help them violate immigration laws. This is not an easy standard to meet unless the law were to explicitly require that every person in the U.S. ask for documentation to verify immigration status before offering assistance. Moreover, innocuous acts, such as giving a ride or providing temporary shelter, would likely fall short of this threshold unless there is clear evidence of intent to circumvent the law. Furthermore, we would also be rewriting hundreds of years of common decency, courtesy, and ethics if we were to prosecute individuals for helping those in need simply because they are undocumented. Would an American citizen refrain from offering assistance to someone clearly in danger out of fear of criminal prosecution? Such an approach challenges the very principles of compassion and humanity that underpin our society. But, of course, most Republicans lack decency, compassion, and a moral compass.
This raises an important question, though: to what extent can this law be enforced without violating constitutional and civil rights? Expansive enforcement risks overreach, infringing on personal freedoms, and further eroding trust within communities.
Jamie, I agree with what you said. Unfortunately the entire 8USC1322-1327 is quite ambiguous and broad. Especially 1324 has language related to aiding, abetting, transporting in the interior of the US than just the border. I think they will try and prosecute people and organizations under this law to make examples out of them. Tom Homan specifically mentioned this. Whether they will be able to convict or not is not clear but how many people are willing to fight the government for the sake of others. This will cause a loss of material support to undocumented individuals in the society as people will be afraid of getting involved. I think this is exactly what the administration is after.
Very well said. I do hope the public starts to push back and the Administration takes a more moderate tack. Take care, Jason
Hey Jason! I lost my father last year and he didn’t leave a will. We want to give our mom the ownership of the house but for that I need to sign a document to give up my rights to the house and for that I need to meet up with an official from that country. I’ve been waiting for my affirmative asylum case for over 6 years now and my understanding is that it will hurt my case to communicate with government officials.
Do you know what I can do in this case?
I am very sorry for your loss. I do not see how this would have any effect on your asylum case. Also, I am not sure you need to communicate with any government officials about this. You probably just sign the forms and the forms are filed with a state or local office (not the federal government), and these offices have nothing to do with immigration (unless I guess your state has laws about that, but even then, I do not see how signing over your rights to a house would have any effect on your asylum case). Take care, Jason
I meant to say that I need to communicate with the government that I’m fleeing from, go to their consulate and give them a signed document. That I believe is the process.
In that case, you should at least be prepared to explain why the government that seeks to persecute you was willing to cooperate with you. I am not sure this would be a major issue, but then again, I do not know your case. Maybe you want to talk to a lawyer to look at the specific situation and see whether there would be any impact on the asylum case. Take care, Jason
-Respected Jason,
Hope you are all doing well. Currently, my wife’s asylum is pending in immigration court, and scheduled for a master hearing in mid-July,2025. We are in NYC. At this time she receives home health care (via CDPAP) is this considered a public charge and would hinder her asylum eligibility decision later on? As per President Trump’s recent executive order is intent to limiting public benefits. At this point, my wife should continue to receive home health care or she should stop it immediately? if it is considered a public charge. Please, please advise. I highly appreciate your help as always. Thank you very much.
The public charge rules do not apply to asylum seekers, so she does not need to worry about that. Whether the government will end any benefits she is receiving, I do not know, but if she is able to continue receiving this help, it should have no effect on her asylum case (and if she wins asylum, it should have no effect on her GC or citizenship cases). Take care, Jason
I don’t understand why asylum advocates didn’t work harder to get kamala harris elected.
I never saw a single immigration or asylum advocate campaign with Kamala Harris or do phone banking, canvassing for her.
But after Trump is elected, these people came out, saying ….Oh…it’s so terrible…kind of make me feel that…they want to scare people into…retaining their business…
My opinion is that, if asylum advocates really have asylum seekers’ best interest in mind…Then, they would have worked a lot harder to get Kamala Harris elected…I should see asylum advocates nationwide endorse Kamala Harris. Campaign for her. phone banking for her, canvass for her.
If it’s not intentional, at the very least it’s not effective. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure…we should not talk about the things we could do after the fact (that Trump is elected). We should have been talking about how to prevent Trump from getting into the office.
I have exact same question, tiktok is filled with all this immigration lawyers giving tips and tricks and everything they talk is already public information. Google is of more help than those tiktok lawyers.
However Lawyers like Jason has been writing for years and educating us for free how to navigate this complex immigration journey. He was giving tips on how to help Kamala during the election without breaking American law. Anyway don’t fall for those attention and money grabbing lawyers who want to get fame and wealth on our suffering. Take care
It’s cheap and 0-cost to type up “how to help Kamala” piece. While I applaud the good intention, it doesn’t seem to have helped very much.
But after further thinking, it’s probably not a good idea for asylum advocates to campaign with Kamala Harris. because the presence of asylum advocates will just stir up emotions of anti-asylum people and motivate them to vote…
So…no there is not a good answer to this. And it looks like U.S. asylum program is on its way to demise…
If celebrities with millions of followers across various platforms couldn’t help elect Kamala, I’m not sure who else could have. Instead of crying over spilled milk, which is useless, we should focus on doing everything we legally can to prevent the Trump administration and its allies from causing harm to immigrants.
I admit that I am very strict and hold asylum advocates to a very high standard.
I believe they should be subject to a very high standards tho, given the gravity of their work.
So, whenever I see that asylum advocates didn’t do all they can, I don’t shy away from giving my constructive suggestion. In my opinion, there is a lot that asylum advocates can actually do (that haven’t been done). So I feel that it’s necessary for that to be said.
Celebrities, or asylum advocates. They may be not able to single handedly help Kamala Harris get elected. But maybe they can cumulatively get Kamala Harris elected.
I see a great absence of actions from asylum advocates in the 2024 election. Many asylum advocates are U.S. citizens, they can donate money to candidates. Why haven’t that been done ?
There is a website called opensecrets donor lookup. With all the money immigration lawyers are making in big corporations, I would think it really doesn’t hurt a lot if they could donate maybe …500 dollars to Kamala Harris ? But when I typed in the names of a few prominent asylum or immigration lawyers, it appears they didn’t donate a single penny to Kamala Harris. And I think…that’s a little disappointing. The election of Kamala Harris could positively change the asylum seeking experience of many asylum seekers. And it’s probably a more efficient way in making a change for asylum seekers…With trump in this administration…I mean…I don’t see there is a lot that advocacy groups like ACLU or AILA can do…after all, they are not in power…So sometimes, I am not very pleased with the action/rhetoric mismatch displayed by the asylum advocates community.
Hello Jason
I hope this message finds you well.I would like to ask you two questions:
I applied for asylum and was referred to court. While I was in removal proceedings I married to USC then the case was terminated and I continued the AOS with USCIS. I received my 10 years green card.
1- Can I apply for citizenship based on the 3 years rule(spouse of USC)? Or do I have to wait 5 years after my removal was terminated?
2- does (previously was in removal) situation affect the n400 application in general?
Congratulations on joining Murray Osorio Law Firm , you truly deserve the best!!
Thank you so much!
1 – If you got the GC based on marriage to a citizen and you are still married to that person, you can file the N-400 after 3 years, assuming you are otherwise eligible. You can actually send the form 90 days before the 5-year anniversary, so that is about 2 years and 9 months after you got the GC. 2 – Not, but you have to note that on any relevant question and probably include evidence that the case was dismissed. I did a post on December 2, 2020 about asylees applying for citizenship – not all of it applies to you, but some does, as you previously had an asylum case. Maybe that would be of interest. Take care, Jason
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-deportation-agents-target-migrants-biden-administration-us/
Trump empowers deportation agents to target migrants Biden administration allowed into the U.S. legally
Washington — The Trump administration has given federal immigration authorities permission to revoke the legal status of hundreds of thousands of migrants the former Biden White House allowed into the U.S. and seek their deportation, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by CBS News.
The far-reaching move empowers federal immigration agencies, including U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement, to target a population of migrants who came to the U.S. with the government’s permission and who expected to be shielded from deportation, at least temporarily.
Now, ICE officers can arrest, detain and deport — in some cases, in an expedited fashion — at least 1.5 million migrants who came to the U.S. in recent years under programs the Biden administration said dissuaded illegal immigration but that the Trump administration now argues were unlawful.
I read that news but I found out that it is only for people who didn’t apply for asylum after paroled in to US. If they didn’t applied for asylum that means they can be easily deported
trust me soon they’ll be targeting everyone, even those with pending asylum cases. They’re going to fast-track the process, so if your asylum case isn’t strong like most of asylum seekers, you won’t be waiting years for deportation anymore! Right now, no non-citizen in this country is truly safe unless you have a green card and no serious criminal record. Even if you have a minor crime, it’s not easy and complicated process for the judge to take away your green card and send you packing.
Hi Jason
I applied for a green card on 03/17/23. My case out side processing time. Today I got response from USCIS for my service request to be patience and wait for decision. Due to high volume case it might take longer. My case close to 2 years and out side current case processing time (15.5 months). How long should I wait to get decision? Any suggestions Jason for next step?
Thank you
Everything seems slow and it will probably get even slower. You can try making an inquiry with the USCIS Ombudsman’s office – a link is under Resources and they sometimes help with delayed cases. If that fails, maybe you can look into filing a mandamus lawsuit. Take care, Jason
Hi Sir, I entered the US through Mexico border illegally more than one yr and a half. Can I still send asylum application to court? Will they accept?
Thank you
I did a post on January 18, 2018 about exceptions to the one year filing rule – maybe that would give you some ideas. If you have a case in court, you probably have no choice but to file for asylum. Hopefully, you can get help from a lawyer, but it is generally more difficult to win if you do not file on time. Hopefully, there is an exception to the rule that can help you. If not, you can still get other forms of protection that are not as good as asylum, but still allow you to stay here: Withholding of Removal or relief under the Torture Convention (or maybe something else, depending on the facts of your case). Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
Thank you for your unwavering support and kindness in assisting those of us who are in need of hope and guidance.
Given the recent change in administration, I am wondering if the asylum office is still likely to approve cases, or if there is an increased risk of denials for minor reasons. I have concerns that decisions may become more difficult to obtain moving forward. I am originally from Afghanistan and have been awaiting a decision on my case for the past two years. I came here legally through visa.
My second question:
I’m considering starting Uber as a part-time job to support my family, as I’m the primary breadwinner. I’ve done this before, but now I’m concerned that they may stop me for an issue and will take me to ICE since they can know easily that I am asylum applicant if they check my driver license.
We have not seen any indication of that, at least not yet, but I expect the asylum offices know that Trump does not want them to approve a lot of cases, and so they will have pressure to deny. Also, we can expect changes in the regulations and case law, which may also cause more denials. However, for a case from Afghanistan, I would still expect a good chance of success for most people. As for Uber, it should be ok as long as you have a license and carry proof of your status with you, such as the EAD and asylum receipt, and try not to break the law. You might also want to know which areas report people without status to ICE, though you have a pending status and so there would be no reason to report you. Take care, Jason
I came here to usa with my wife in. September 2015 and we apply for asylum in feb 2106 and still waiting for interview we have three kids born here
I have two questions
1. What is my legal status now?
2 .what to do to safe me and my family
I came to USA with my wife in September 2015 on b1/b2 I applied for asylum in feb 2016 and after that I am waiting for my interview.
I have two questions
1.whats my legal status?
2. What measure should I take ta safe my self
I have three kids born here
1 – you have a pending asylum case. That is not a status. Maybe you have some other status, such as an H1b visa or TPS, but you did not mention that. 2 – I wrote about some ideas on January 8, 2025 and October 7, 2020. Follow the law, keep copies of your asylum pending documents (EAD, asylum receipt), and live your life. There is not much else to do. Take care, Jason
What a life? Those who applied after me got their green cards approved but my application keeps going from one office to another like a HIV positive child who is about to die
2023-08-05
537 days ago
Fingerprint Fee Was Received
2023-08-07
535 days ago
Case Was Updated To Show Fingerprints Were Taken
2024-02-01
357 days ago
Case Was Transferred And A New Office Has Jurisdiction
2024-07-17
190 days ago
Expedite Request Denied
2024-12-03
51 days ago
Case Transferred To Another Office
It’s truly gross. If the expedite requests have failed, maybe you want to think about mandamus. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason. Is it safe to travel outside the U.S. (not to COP) these days with GC and RTD? My country of origin is Muslim-majority but was not on travel ban in Present Trump’s first term.
I might wait a bit, just to see how things develop, but my guess is that you will not be affected. Take care, Jason
Hi jason, my family has decision pending in chicago office for almost 3 years reached out to senator and all but still nothing would you recommend anything. Thanks
I wrote about this on June 2, 2021 and March 30, 2022. If those ideas do not work, you might consider a mandamus lawsuit. Take care, Jason
+1 for Mandamus.
I’m waiting for almost a year and tried everything that Jason advised to do. No one is able to help unless you file mandamus.
Agreed – in most cases, mandamus is the only realistic option, though usually you can not file a mandamus for a few years after the asylum case is filed. Take care, Jason
Hello Mak,
I waited close to 10 years to get the decision from Chicago. That office destroyed my life
Hi sir,
Im John and im waiting for asylum interview with uscis for 2 years but no interview. I have a ead card. I came to usa in 2015 and filed asylum after 7 years in usa due to stress of persecution. I know im barred asylum due to one year but i have a work permit . Will trumps new policy take my work permit away. My work permit is expiring and im renewing it this week . Can i still get my work permit renewal of 5 years or trump will deny my ead. In 2020 he did same thing to other immigrants stopped giving work permits to who filed asylum after one year.
But if i file for renewal now and he changes the rules will i be grandfathered under biden rules that allowed me to get ead even after one year deadline. I think if he change rules it goes 60 days rule-making .
He has not yet moved to limit work permits, and so we do not know. I would apply as soon as possible, and hopefully get the new EAD. You can apply online and this may be faster. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason. Will trup executive orders effect 1. i130 Applications of Asylum Holders for spouse in there home countries? 2. Citizenship of Asylum Holders?
1 – Maybe, as there will probably be extra attention and delay for such cases. Also, some countries may get “banned” again, and whether that will affect I-130 people, I do not know. 2 – I highly doubt it, as that would be too difficult. Maybe if there is a reason to believe the original asylum case was fake, but otherwise, I do not think so. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I am from Afghanistan and came here on humanitarian parole status. I recently applied for asylum a few weeks ago but haven’t received a notice of receipt yet. Are people with pending asylum also at risk of deportation?
I doubt you are under a risk of deportation, and I expect you will receive your receipt. Also, you may have TPS or your parole may still be valid, and those both protect you from deportation (as does a pending asylum case). We will have to see, but I expect that cases like yours will move forward. It is important to gather all evidence and get ready, in case you get a fast interview. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Do you think that there is a chance that granted asylums may be impacted? For asylees who has not applied for gc yet, what would be best course of action? To apply gc or wait?
For asylees who has already applied to gc and decision is still pending, in case of rejection, what would happen? Will asylee status be kept as is? Can someone also lose asylee status? What would be the worst scenario?
I think people with asylum have some protection and I am not sure they will be primary or secondary targets. I would not take any action, other than to watch the news and see how things develop. It is probably ok to apply for the GC if you are eligible, but I expect such applicants will receive extra scrutiny (as they did during the first Trump term), and so if your asylum case was not very strong, but you won anyway, maybe you want to hold off applying for the GC, as it would be good to know how aggressively they are interviewing asylee GC applicants, and we do not have an idea about that yet. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
About that, do you think the naturalization process is going to be more difficult with extra scrutiny?
Probably, but we will have to wait and see. Take care, Jason
https://thehill.com/homenews/5101271-us-military-border-deployment/
Pentagon to support deportation flights, construct barriers in border deployment
The U.S. military will support deportation flights and intelligence collection and help construct barriers when 1,500 active-duty troops deploy to the southern border and begin work in the next two days.
In a statement, acting Defense Secretary Robert Salesses said the deployment mission began on Wednesday and involves military airlift support for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to help deport more than 5,000 undocumented immigrants detained in San Diego, California and El Paso.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/trump-administration-fires-immigration-judges.html
Trump Administration Fires Immigration Court Officials as Crackdown Begins.
What do you think about that? Trump let go of the top judges in the immigration court to replace them with his own, and I’ve heard from various asylum lawyers on YouTube that they’re anticipating the denial rates to hit record highs during his time in office.
I saw he fired the leadership at EOIR, but I did not see that judges have been targeted yet. I can’t say I was a fan of EOIR during the Biden Administration, but I agree that things will be getting worse. Also, during Trump’s first term, the changes made to immigration regulations and case law caused the denial rate to increase pretty significantly. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I have a scenario here:
My affirmative case was pending since last 9 years (waiting for interview)
I got interview scheduled last year in December and when we went for interview one of my son became above 14 years old and they asked me to get his finger prints done then they will reschedule my interview. so i got his fingerprint done and now waiting for rescheduling.
this month my labor certificate came (for eb3).
Now If i go a head and apply for i140 while my interview is supposed to be rescheduled, will i be eligible for i485?
Thank you.
You will need to talk to a lawyer about the specifics. Maybe there is a path for you under a law called INA 245(k), or maybe there is some other way. For example, if you have maintained lawful status, such as an H1b of F visa (and asylum pending does not count) all this time, you should be eligible. But most people in your situation would not be eligible. It may be worth talking to a lawyer to see if there is a path for you. I wrote more about this on August 28, 2018 and September 6, 2018 and maybe those posts will give you some ideas. Take care, Jason
Hi, jason .
Thank for your support and guidance for us always.
My individual hearing is weeks away , Tge judge advised us that my wife asylum case be withdraw application “and consolidate it with mine.
My question is my wife had her Ead which was applied under her own case . Will the Ead still be functional if her case is merged with mine
As I understand the current rule, your wife’s EAD will remain valid until it expires. However, I think it is a bad idea to withdraw her case. Normally, you would only do that if you win asylum, so the judge does not need to look at her case either. Maybe you can say that you would like to keep her case open, but you will plan to present only your own case at the hearing. That way, if you lose, or if you get some lesser form of relief that does not include dependents (such as Withholding of Removal or Torture Convention relief), she will still be able to try to get status. Maybe as long as the judge understand there will not be extra work for her case, you can keep her case alive, so you have it if you need it. Take care, Jason
Hello,
I applied for my green card 653 days ago, a year after receiving asylum approval from the Boston court. So far, there hasn’t been any update. I also sent an online inquiry a month ago with no response. In your opinion, when do you think I might receive my green card?
Thank you.
I don’t know, but you can inquire with the USCIS Ombudsman – they sometimes help with delayed cases and their is a link under Resources. Take care, Jason
Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship:
Suspend Refugee Resettlement:
Encourage Federal-State Cooperation:
Reversing President Biden’s (and Other Former Presidents’) Policies:
Work Permits:
Hiring More Agents:
Expedited Removal and Detention:
The 7 points you mentioned. How many of these do YOU think will be held for long ?
I am not sure they will all survive legal review. Also, the public may turn against such harsh measures, but we shall see. Take care, Jason
The executive order concerning birthright citizenship is likely to endure, as the Constitution does not explicitly state that an individual born on U.S. soil must be granted citizenship if their parents are undocumented. This argument has been effectively articulated by attorneys representing former President Trump. It is noteworthy that a child born in the United States to a diplomatic official does not automatically acquire citizenship, despite being born on American soil. Therefore, it is my belief that, following an extended legal battle, the Supreme Court may ultimately rule in favor of Trump’s position.
The plain language of the Amendment does not support that, but I think it is possible that the Supreme Court could reach the conclusion that birthright citizenship does not apply to the children of undocumented people. I do expect that will be a very bad precedent and also that it will cause social problems in the US as time goes along. I am hopeful that this will not happen, but I would not put anything past our current Supreme Court. Take care, Jason
I respectfully disagree. The only way the executive order could withstand legal challenges is if some judges, as is highly likely, choose to ignore the plain language of the 14th Amendment. Your point about children born in the United States to diplomatic parents is not relevant to the issue of automatic citizenship being conferred upon individuals born on U.S. soil to ordinary people, regardless of their immigration status.
The 14th Amendment explicitly establishes the principle of birthright citizenship, meaning anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, provided they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been consistently interpreted to exclude specific groups, such as children of foreign diplomats or enemy forces occupying U.S. territory, but it clearly applies to the overwhelming majority of individuals born on U.S. soil.
This language could not be more straightforward, and it would be an affront to our intelligence for any court to interpret it otherwise.
And yet, given our Supreme Court, we worry. Take care, Jason
Good morning Jason,
My son born on January 8th, 2025 and my wife is a permanent resident but I have a pending decision asylum. Will this impact my son as well or not ?
I am waiting for his birth certificate, and as soon as I get it I will apply for his passport or technology citizenship.
I expect he will be fine, as your wife has lawful status and you are also here legally, though you have no status (asylum pending is not a status; it is just an application for status). Take care, Jason
Hey Jason! Thank you so much for the work that you do including this breakdown of President Trump’s first steps.
There’s a certain lawyer on youtube whom I watch who insists that asylum seekers with pending cases should expedite their cases via the mandamus lawsuit ASAP since it is expected that Trump will continue making it more difficult to seek asylum. Would you agree with this reasoning? I’m considering it right now as I’ve been waiting for my interview for 8 years now.
Maybe, but it seems that the asylum offices are already moving quickly and so an 8 year old case may get interviewed soon anyway. Whether getting a sooner interview will help, I do not know, as they are going to increase vetting, which will slow everything down anyway, so new rules may apply even if you get a faster interview. The alternative is to do nothing and see if you can wait out this Administration, which may not be easy (and who knows, maybe he will get a third term). I guess in short, I do not think things will be getting better, so maybe having a sooner interview will make it a bit easier. Take care, Jason
> so an 8 year old case may get interviewed soon anyway
If this is the case it seems like waiting out this administration may be unlikely? Do you by any chance have an idea how soon I may get my interview? Perhaps some of your 8-9 year old cases with your clients are starting to get interviews?
We have been seeing interviews for cases filed in Spring 205 at the Arlington, VA asylum office. I do not know what is happening at other office, and it seems the asylum office is currently surging interviews. That is supposed to last until mid-March, but who knows? Take care, Jason
Is there a reason for the surge? And why is only until mid-March?
Apparently, it is an experiment to see how it goes. According to the officer I spoke to, they do not expect that it will go well, but we shall see. Take care, Jason