A new final rule from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Court system, has substantially relaxed the requirements for serving as a Temporary Immigration Judge. Under this rule, people with little or no immigration experience can decide whether asylum seekers and other non-citizens are entitled to remain in the United States or must be deported.
Adding insult to injury, the rule also changes the language in the Code of Federal Regulations, and so now, instead of the term “noncitizens,” the CFR will refer to “aliens.”
Here, we’ll discuss these changes, and how they might impact “aliens” in Immigration Court.
First, it’s worth noting that, at the same time EOIR is hiring Temporary Immigration Judges (affectionately known as a TIJs), it is simultaneously firing scores of regular Immigration Judges (IJs). Indeed, more than 100 IJs have been fired or pushed out since January. This represents roughly 15% of the entire Immigration Judge corp. As you might expect, eliminating so many IJ positions is unlikely to help reduce the Immigration Court’s 4.1 million-case backlog.
Prior to the new rule, TIJs were limited to “former IJs and Appellate Immigration Judges, EOIR administrative law judges (‘ALJs’) or ALJs retired from EOIR, ALJs from other Executive Branch agencies with the consent of their agencies, and Department [of Justice] attorneys with at least 10 years of legal experience in the field of immigration law.” EOIR has now concluded that these requirements are “too narrow” and they impede the Agency’s “ability to use the TIJ authority to the extent needed.”
Under the new rule, the only requirement for TIJs is “that they be attorneys.” Speaking from experience, this is not a high bar. But what attorneys are likely to be hired as TIJs?
It’s probably easier to guess who EOIR won’t hire. I doubt the Agency will take lawyers from the private immigration bar or from non-profit organizations. Such lawyers would generally be unable to drop their client responsibilities for a temporary gig at EOIR, but even if they were available, few such attorneys would be ideologically aligned with the Trump Administration’s goals. For this reason, there is not much chance EOIR will hire any of us. On the other hand, if EOIR is looking for private lawyers, I wouldn’t mind giving it a go. Plus, I look good in a black robe. Very good.
More realistically, EOIR will hire DHS attorneys, military lawyers, and other government lawyers as TIJs. One worry is that such people would be biased against immigrants. In its memo, EOIR dismisses this concern: “To the extent commenters cast doubt on the ability of Department attorneys to serve as neutral arbiters and thus question whether they should be allowed to serve as TIJs, the Department disagrees with such unsupported accusations.” I am not buying this. DHS attorneys are the prosecutors in Immigration Court. If they become TIJs, do we really expect them to hold their colleagues and supervisors accountable? Especially knowing that they will have to return to their old jobs. I feel more confidence in military judges, as long as they are chosen on a neutral basis and not based on their political ideology.
However, given that EOIR has been firing IJs perceived to be insufficiently in line with the Trump Administration’s agenda, it stands to reason that the Agency will only hire TIJs willing to do the Administration’s bidding. Under these circumstances, who will even apply for TIJ positions? I suspect the jobs will attract candidates who support the Administration’s anti-immigrant agenda and who accept its many false statements about immigrants. This is the type of person who puts ideology before Justice, and would, almost by definition, lack the integrity and discernment to do the job properly.
Those who are hired will be appointed to six-month terms, which can be extended in six months increments. If a TIJ wants their judgeship extended, they will presumably have to tow the government line and deny more cases. This is a perverse incentive, which will not dispose TIJs to act as neutral arbiters of the immigration law.
Finally, the whole TIJ thing is a slap in the face to real IJs. Essentially, EOIR is sending the message that anyone can do their job and that experience does not matter. On the other hand, perhaps these days, anyone can do the job, given that the job now seems to be deporting people as quickly as possible with as little due process as possible.
* * * * *
The final rule also amends the language of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) related to immigrants. The CFR originally referred to “aliens,” which many people came to view as derogatory, anachronistic, and, well, alien. In May 2024, the Biden Administration replaced “alien” with the friendlier-sounding “noncitizen” (though personally, I think it should be “non-citizen,” as I like hyphens). Now, the Trump Administration is reverting to the more derogatory term and has replaced references to “noncitizens” in the CFR with “aliens.” Adding insult to insult, the Administration has also replaced the term “unaccompanied child” with “unaccompanied alien child” because, you know, even though they are children, they are aliens first, and we would not want them to forget that.
As a former EOIR employee (Judicial Law Clerk class of 1998!), it is difficult to watch my old Agency succumb to the Trump agenda. EOIR has never really lived up to its ideals, but now, to see how non-citizens (and noncitizens) are disrespected and denied a fair hearing, shows that the Agency is becoming a rubber stamp for the Administration’s agenda. Lowering the standards for TIJs will only make matters worse. Let us hope that these new judges will take their jobs seriously, and prioritize their duty to the law over fealty to their bosses’ anti-immigrant agenda.
Hi Jason and fellow readers,
Does anybody tried to expedite asylum based greencard recently?
What was your experience?
I have submitted my expedite request 5 weeks ago they asked additional documents 3 weeks ago which I have sent to them the next day. They telling me decision is still pending, is there anything else I can do Jason to speed up my process?
Also is the interview mandatory for asylum greencard or is it case by case?
Your answer would be greatly appreciated sir.
Thanks lot.
I have not had a client try that lately, but it sounds like progress is being made, given that they requested additional evidence. I am not sure what else is effective. You can try calling them, or you can talk to your Congress person’s office to see if they can assist further. You can find contact info if you follow the links under Resources called House of Representatives and Senate. In terms of interviews, I believe it is the intention of USCIS to interview all GC applicants, but whether that will actually happen, we will see. Take care, Jason
When someone is adjusting status , during interview , do immigration officer go back reviewing the asylum case ask questions about the asylum case again, like all the long interview questions again? It seems like a second asylum interview.
In general, they have not done that. However, they are looking more carefully at everyone these days, and so it is a good idea to review your asylum case before your Green Card interview. I doubt it will be a second asylum interview, but they could ask some questions and it is a good idea to be prepared just in case they do. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, I have pending asylum case and have been waiting for an interview for over five years. Recently, I started looking into Canada’s Express Entry program. While I believe my asylum claim is strong, I’m concerned about the risk of being sent to a third country deemed “safe” with all the updates going on currently. My question is: if I create a profile and apply through Canada’s Express Entry program, and then – by chance I finally get scheduled for an asylum interview here, could pursuing Express Entry have any impact on my U.S. asylum case?
Pursuing status in a third country will not affect your asylum case in the US. However, if you actually get permanent status in a third country, that will most likely block you from asylum in the US. On another note, affirmative asylum seekers are not being sent to third countries. The only people who face that problem are people who have Withholding of Removal or protection under the Torture Convention, which are types of protection that can only be obtained in court and that are actually only orders of protection to the specific home country. Hence, anyone with those statuses can potentially be deported to any country except the home country. So based on what you wrote, I do not think that is a possibility in you case, at least not unless you lose the asylum case and get referred to court. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, hope you’re doing well, just wanted to ask your thoughts about the new citizenship test proposal? Will this change face any challenge by advocates or no?
We have not seen any new version of the test, and so we don’t know. The effort seems like a big waste, but USCIS wants to make everything more difficult and it has a mindset that everything is fraud. How a more difficult test will help combat this supposed fraud, I have no idea, but certainly the agency is taking steps to make citizenship and everything else more difficult. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
I would like to apply for a new Refugee Travel Document. My current Refugee Travel Document will expire in January 2026. The USCIS lists a lengthy processing time for I-131, so I would like to apply in advance. However, I’m reading that the USCIS may deny I-131 if I have a valid Refugee Travel Document. So I am worried that if I apply now, they’ll deny my application. Do you think I should wait until my current RTD expires before I apply for a new one?
Thank you!
The I-131 instructions (available at http://www.uscis.gov) state that if you have a valid RTD and want to apply for a new RTD, you are supposed to mail the original, current RTD to USCIS along with your application for the new travel document. If you have no plans to travel between now and January, this won’t be a problem. However, if you want to travel, it is a problem. I have heard that some people send a copy of the RTD and USCIS will then send a request for evidence and ask you to send them the original. I have not tried this, and I think there may be some risk that they will just reject the new application because you did not strictly follow their instructions. If so, you will need to start over with a new application and pay the fee a second time. Unfortunately, the RTD is very problematic, as it does take a while to get the new one, it is only valid for one year, and the rule about sending in the original is idiotic. Given all that, you will need to decide how best to proceed for you. When you file the I-131, you can request to expedite, and that may work if you have a good reason and follow up with USCIS. I wrote about expediting with USCIS generally on January 29, 2020 and maybe that would help. Take care, Jason
I feel that I still need to call out the asylum community.
So…I agree that the us immigration system creates a lot of pain to asylum seekers and deserves to be heavily criticized.
But aren’t the countries of origins the asylum seekers come from the original sinner ? They are the ones who necessitated the asylum journey, the forced displacement. The asylum system is a secondary cause of asylum seekers dilemma…So shouldn’t these countries of origin be even more heavily condemned than the us asylum system ? Because the us asylum system is, at worst, being an imperfect savior who needs reform. But the original sinners need to be held responsible for their evil conduct that necessitated the forced displacement….In my opinion, asylum advocates should at least match the criticism level and intensity that they have for the us immigration system.
But the reality is, of all the asylum articles across different platforms. I very rarely see the original sinners being condemned, almost silent.
I think it’s wrong because this imbalance of coverage makes people think that the us immigration system is the primary, the leading reason for asylum seekers’ suffering even though this “distinction” should be reserved for the countries of origin. And sometimes, some people might think that maybe asylum advocates are, in their mind, secretly hoping that the countries of origin not stopping their behavior so that there will be steady flow of incoming asylum seekers, aka business…this plausible though unverified school of thought actually makes me afraid…because this is not in the best interest of asylum seekers and would-be asylum seekers around the world.
But regardless of state of mind. I believe that the countries of origin should be more heavily criticized by asylum advocates than their criticism of us immigration system. So far it hasn’t been the case and I wish that asylum advocates can start increase their criticism of countries of origin.
Applying for citizenship based on approved asylum. I have 4 speeding tickets in 10 years here in the US. All tickets were <$500 and are fully paid. Last ticket was 3 years ago. Is this reason to worry for my naturalization form in light of the new memorandum. Should I not apply ? Thanks
USCIS will look back at the last 5 years and determine whether you had “good moral character” during that period. You would need to offset any negatives with positive evidence, such as evidence of volunteer work, paying taxes, letters from people attending to your good character, etc. A lawyer may be able to help with this, as the requirements have become more difficult. That said, I doubt that a traffic ticket would block you, but I think you will need to provide evidence about that – the “disposition” or final outcome of the case. Talk to a lawyer to go over everything to be certain. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason
I hope you have seen the recent news about an arrest of a grandmother who wrote a bad check, “charging documents say, for $25.
The U.S. government is suddenly arguing that was a crime of moral turpitude.”
https://www.firstalert4.com/2025/09/04/woman-held-by-ice-over-25-bad-check-10-years-ago/
So with this, it seems, they can imply anything as crime of moral tupitude. I have a GC pending with approved asylum and I had a ticket 15 years ago for driving with a learners permit, paid fine and case closed and clean record since then.
So, just wanted your opinion on that please.
I did not see this, but it is not a surprise. However, depending on the statute, it is very likely a CIMT. If the statute states that a person is guilty if they had the intent to write a bad check, then the crime is likely a CIMT, as the immigration analysis depends on the “intent” element of the statute. It does not depend on the length of the sentence. A driving infraction is not a crime and also likely does not involve any element of intent to do something wrong. For these reasons, I highly doubt your ticket would have any effect on your situation. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Thanks for everything you do. I’m asking this on behalf of a friend who applied for asylum a few years ago but has not yet received an interview notice. He recently got engaged, and his fiancée is considering filing her own asylum application.
Would she be able to do so? If yes, how would that affect his pending case, if at all?
Thank you so much for your guidance.
Best,
Nazar
If they are not legally married, there is no effect at all. If they are married, she can file her own case and/or join his case, and he could join her case (or when she files, she can include him as a dependent, which is easier). Adding a person to a pending case is very difficult, but they can try. If they are not able to add the other as a dependent, maybe they could do that at the interview itself, which is usually easier, as long as they let the asylum office know in advance and bring all relevant documents. I wrote about adding a dependent to an existing asylum case on March 29, 2023 and maybe that post would be of interest. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason
1-Do you know how long does a USCIS FOIA request for the whole immigration file take?
2-Will court documents be included or does it require a separate EIOR FOIA?
3-If submitting affidavits and witnesses letters to USCIS, Do they have to be notarized or just dated and signed?
Thank you
1 – Probably 2 to 4 months. It usually does not take too long by USCIS standards. 2 – Unless the court documents are part of the USCIS file, you will need to request those separately. If your court case is online (under the ECAS system), most documents should be available on the EOIR portal. 3 – They are getting stricter about witness letters. In the past, we submitted signed and dated letters with a government-issued photo ID and that was fine. I think it should still be fine, but if you can get letters notarized, that would offer another layer of protection if DHS (the prosecutor) tries to object to the letters. Take care, Jason
If court documents inside USCIS file, can this cause delays for USCIS FOIA itself?
Letters will be submitted to USCIS not DHS, does this make a difference in your previous answer?
Thank you so much.
I do not see why that would make a difference in the processing time, but I am not sure. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I was wondering if any of your clients have had any encounters with ICE or anyone else in here, either in D.C. or elsewhere. If so, could you share what the experience was like? Were you questioned extensively, and were documents like your EAD and asylum receipt sufficient for them to let you go?
It’s been about a month since I stopped working out of caution, as I’m the sole provider for my family, and I want to avoid any issues. I’d really appreciate any insight you can provide.
Some of my clients have had ICE check-ins. So far, no one was detained. Some did receive ankle monitors. I have also consulted with a number of people whose family members were detained. Most seem to have been stopped while driving and they are currently in detention, and will have to decide whether to fight deportation or leave. People who entered the US unlawfully, who do not have a pending case, who have a prior deport order, and who have criminal issues are more vulnerable to being detained than people who entered with a visa and have a pending application. Take care, Jason
Thank you, Jason, for your response. I just want to confirm…does this mean that none of your clients with pending cases who entered the country lawfully have been detained?
Also, while I understand nothing is guaranteed, it’s reassuring to know that we are not currently a priority for detention.
I honestly don’t know when this stress will finally be over. It’s hard to believe I’ve made it through this far.
As far as I know, none of my affirmative asylum seeker clients has been detained, and I have not heard about that happening unless there are criminal issues. So I think that group is not a target for detention. Nevertheless, there is a lot of terrible news and so that makes any non-citizen (and many citizens) very stressed. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason. I would like to ask for your advice about my situation. I hired an attorney for $6,500 and I have already paid $4,500. I earned this money under very difficult circumstances, and I did not pay only for filling out forms, but for active case management and representation in court.
However, after my judge was removed, my attorney made no effort and only told me that ‘there is nothing to do but wait.’ He has not prepared me for the possibility of being detained by ICE, and he has not been answering my calls. When I tried to schedule a meeting, he said he would only speak with me if I paid the remaining $2,000.
Later, I learned that there are actually ways to have a new judge assigned more quickly, such as filing a motion to advance or a status inquiry, but my attorney has not attempted any of these.
Since I have already paid the majority of the fee, I do not think it is fair to pay the remaining $2,000 under these circumstances. What rights do I have in this situation, and what steps would you recommend I take? Thank You.
I do not know that the lawyer is required to file a motion for you, and the lawyer may have information about the court indicating that a motion to advance will not work. The lawyer could also potentially change an extra fee if the motion (or other services) are not part of the original contract. That said, the lawyer is required to communicate with you and explain why he cannot file the motion, as lawyers are required to communicate with their clients. If the lawyer is not fulfilling his duty, you can ask for a re-fund of any unearned fees and find a new lawyer. Ultimately, if the lawyer is not fulfilling his duties and is not returning un-earned fees, you can threaten to complain to the bar association (each lawyer must belong to a state bar association that regulates attorney conduct). Usually, such a threat will get you what you want, but it will also poison your relationship with the lawyer, so you need to be careful. Hopefully, you can just ask for an explanation about why he won’t file the motion and he can explain, as there may be a valid reason. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
Please quick question, I have a green card through asylum. I also have travel document valid one, please do i need a visa to travel to Canada. Thank you .
Green card holders have visa free access to canada for 6 months (business or leisure, not for profit). However you do have to have a valid travel document along with the green card.
True but if going by land you can cross with just a green card and a driver’s license.
My understanding is that you need a GC and a valid passport or travel document, but I am not sure. As requirements sometimes change, I would double check the Canadian embassy website or contact them to be sure. Take care, Jason
Thank you, Jason, and everyone who responded to my question. I checked their website, and it states that I can travel to Canada without a visa only if I have an American passport. However, with just a travel document and a green card, I will need a Canadian visa. I also confirmed this information with the airline, and they provided the same answer.
That’s helpful to know – Thank you, Jason
I do not think you need a visa, but I do not know for sure. You might check the Canadian embassy website to see if the travel document and green card are enough or if you need something more. If the website does not tell you, you can try contacting them directly. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
My MCH is in few months and still the same judge is assigned as I checked online.
How can this affect my individual hearing? Can they change the judge to a temporary military attorney judge?
It is going to take some time to find and onboard new judges, so I doubt we will see changes within the next few months. That said, judges do get changed sometimes and there is not much that we can do about it. For the most part, though, the judge remains the same from the MCH through the end of the case. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I would like to complain about the discrimination I received because of lack of asylee status. I worked for a private company where they offered a college partnership scholarship with ASU, where in their terms people who meet certain work performances(a few permeance indicators) will get their tuition covered 100% at ASU after federal aids and grants. They require a fafsa filing and completion (results send back to ASU) to unlock the company’s tuition coverage. Obviously, asylum seekers are not eligible for fasfa, so the result is neither complete nor returned to ASU. They won’t honor the scholarship benefits because of me being ineligible defined by fasfa’s ‘eligible non-citizen’ categories. Therefore, it essentially sounds like a legal status is mandatory to get tuition coverage. I feel so upset because this is not necessarily using any federal student assistance (if fasfa can be completed and returned $0), but the company’s private tuition coverage. I know this has nothing to do with immigration really, I just want to attend a college and earn some new skills with low costs. I cannot afford anything as an international student. Furthermore, I don’t know if there’s a way around it for ASU, it seems unlikely that I may have access to this program.
But I haven’t heard any effective ways to counter that. So I am following.
I don’t think short of a lawsuit, you will get what you want. I don’t think you can afford to hire a lawyer for such civil discrimination matter… so I am not sure if you have a remedy…
But I’d like to hear from Jason.
I doubt a lawsuit would work in a situation like this. Some types of discrimination are protected, such as based on race, but other types are not protected. And I doubt that discrimination based on immigrant status would violate any rules in a situation like this. I do not know for sure, and so certainly you can check with an attorney who does civil rights work, but I think such a lawsuit would be unlikely to succeed. Take care, Jason
Any discrimination suit is hard to succeed.
And I agree that this situation is unlikely to have legal remedy.
Now I do worry…that asylum seekers get discriminated in essentials
If I am denied jobs/job interviews or rental housing because of my immigration status , what can I do ? Do I have legal remedies ? I feel these are more urgent than being denied a scholarship…so just want to ask
It is not my area of law, but I believe that if a person is discriminated against due to certain immigration statuses, that is illegal, but it depends on the status. For example, if you are a naturalized US citizen but face discrimination if you were not born in the US. So I think it depends on your status and maybe also on state laws where you live, but you would need to talk with a lawyer who knows more about that than me. Take care, Jason
There is a lot of harm caused by leaving people in limbo for years waiting for their cases and this is another example. You may want to reach out to the school – to the international student office or if there is an office that helps with scholarships. Maybe they can help, or maybe they have different programs to help people in your situation. Take care, Jason
I was reading an article today and I see that in order for someone to adjust status imigration has to see that you are still meet the definition of refugee/asylee. Its confusing, is that mean they going to review the asylum case again to approve the case?or do asylee have to go through this stressful process again to explain what happen to them?
In the past, it was never necessary to re-explain the situation, and even with the stepped up enforcement we are seeing, I doubt asylees will have to go through the process again to get a GC. I do think more (or maybe all) GC applicants will receive interviews, and there may be some questions about the old asylum case. We will have to see how this goes, and if I have news, I will try to write about it here. Take care, Jason
I also see the international trend…
It seems that as the us is receding in terms of democracy and freedom, other evil axis countries are … rising…I am worried that one day, the word will be led by these evil powers…
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8z83np4xjo
If the Eastern Bloc prevails…it’s a very bad thing for world peace…right ?
But I think the bigger problem is the people (voters) who are anti-immigrant.
If the asylum community can’t change these voters’ mind, or in someway, disappear these voters…and in this environment, I have to clarify I don’t mean to murder them or have them unnaturally die.
The republicans will just keep winning elections. Because they see that the anti-immigrant sentiment has a big market and they will feed on that.
So…what should we do to change the anti-immigrant republican voters ? Can we bring them to a state that they are at least not anti-immigrant ? This is one of the most important jobs that the asylum advocates need to do. And I would argue that it is more important than winning individual asylum cases.
The process of breaking down prejudices is very difficult, but we need to keep telling the stories of non-citizens and of asylum seekers. Not everyone will be convinced, but some will be. Also, ironically, I think polling shows that the crackdown on immigrants is making people more sympathetic to them (not that this is helping anyone at the moment). At the same time, we need to keep working to protect individual people from deportation. Take care, Jason
“Not everyone will be convinced, but some will be. Also, ironically, I think polling shows that the crackdown on immigrants is making people more sympathetic to them (not that this is helping anyone at the moment).”
I think we need to have a good way to identify those who could be convinced, because we have limited resources..everybody has limited resources and time…so we need to spend them wisely. Any idea in differentiating those who could be convinced vs. who couldn’t be ?
I agree that polling shows that the crackdown on immigrants making them more sympathetic…I mean…
I am not sure I trust these people. They simply feel the economic pain as a result of trying to hurt asylum seekers. e.g., the federal firing, the people who don’t show up because fear of ICE…they simply appear to be sympathetic because these policies have started to now hurt themselves. If a policy is purely detrimental to asylum seekers but has no effect on themselves (or even benefit themselves, like paying 5 cents less for an egg). They will do everything in their power to throw asylum seekers under the bus. They are in someway more evil than the outright bad people. The hypocrisy should be spelled out…
I don’t agree with that. I think when people see actual human beings assaulted and dragged away from their families, it engenders more sympathy than when the target of these attacks is an abstract concept of “aliens.” When non-citizens are humanized and their stories are told, we are much more likely to win, even with people who tend to be “anit-immigrant.” Take care, Jason
Jason,
You are correct. To add insult to the injury, today, Axios has reported that the Department of Defense, (or the Department of War as it’s now going to be called), is going to deputize 600 military lawyers as immigration judges to quickly cover the 3.5 million backlog. There’s also some thought process to conduct a lot of cases virtually or deny cases based on just paperwork if the judge feels like no relief is available. I don’t think this is good news at all.
If they just randomly assigned military lawyers, I think that might be ok, but it sounds like they will be looking for volunteers, and I expect those who volunteer will be more likely to support the Administration’s anti-immigrant agenda. So I agree that this is probably bad news for immigrants, due process, democracy, and for people in the military who needed the lawyers to do their actual jobs. Take care, Jason