In its ongoing effort to (supposedly) “protect the American people from invasion,” the Trump Administration has published new rules to further restrict Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for asylum seekers. If implemented, these changes will be quite harmful to people filing new asylum applications in the United States.
What’s more, there is addition bad news buried within the proposed EAD rules. USCIS has included new Asylum Office data, which shows a steep decline in asylum grant rates.
Let’s start with the EAD rules, which will apply to cases at the Asylum Office and in Immigration Court. Under these rules, asylum applicants will have to wait 365 days before applying for an initial EAD, instead of the current 150-days. Also, processing time for the initial EAD will increase from 30 days to 180 days. Worst of all, DHS plans to pause the acceptance of initial asylum-pending EAD applications when “the average processing time for affirmative asylum applications… exceeds 180 days.” DHS estimates that it will take “between 14 and 173 years to reach a 180-day processing time” (and yes, this is an actual quote from the proposed rule). Until then, no new asylum applicants will get EADs. The only saving grace here is that this rule applies only to initial EADs. It does not apply to renewals or to people replacing lost cards. However, for new asylum applicants, the rule–if implemented–will almost certainly block them from obtaining a work permit during the course of their asylum case.
Even if the “pause” is not implemented, the new rule would block certain applicants from obtaining work authorization. These include any EAD application where there is “reason to believe” that the person may be subject to a criminal bar to asylum. Also blocked from an EAD are most asylum seekers who filed for asylum more than one year after arriving in the U.S. and most people who entered without a visa (the main exception here is when the asylum seeker is an unaccompanied minor).
These provisions would only apply to new applicants and not to people who filed for asylum before the rule goes into effect. Thus, for people who already have an EAD, these rules should have no impact. Also, these are “proposed” rules, which should not go into effect before April 24, 2026, and which could–and hopefully will–be blocked by a court.
As I read these rules, the only provision that seems to apply to someone with a current case is the proposal to “prioritize asylum applications for adjudication if USCIS finds derogatory information” while processing the EAD. So for example, if the Agency discovers that an EAD applicant has a criminal conviction, it will expedite that person’s asylum interview, presumably so it can deny asylum based on a criminal bar.
* * * * *
Contained within the announcement for the new rules, we find some Asylum Office statistics. This data was released solely for the purpose of justifying the new EAD restrictions, and it is not nearly as detailed as we might hope (and as we often received from prior Administrations). Nevertheless, it does give us some insight into how the Asylum Offices are operating now. The data was released in the form of a chart:
Let’s look a bit more deeply at these numbers. To do that, I will attempt something that lawyers should generally avoid: math.
First, it is important to understand each column of the chart. The years listed on the left are fiscal years, so for example, FY2025 runs from October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025. The “Receipts” column is the number of new affirmative asylum applications filed during the relevant fiscal year. “Pending” is the total number of cases pending at our nation’s Asylum Offices at the end of the fiscal year. “Total Completions” is the number of cases that were completed during that fiscal year. There are three ways a case can be completed, as shown in the last three columns. “Approved” means asylum was granted. “Admin Closed” means the case was closed without a decision. “Denial/Referral” is for asylum cases that received a final denial (where the person has some other lawful status in the U.S.) or was referred to Immigration Court (where the person has no legal status in the country).
One piece of data that stands out is the number of admin closures, which have increased dramatically in the last few years. Indeed, in FY2025, admin closures represented 88.6% of all Asylum Office decisions. We don’t know, but I suspect that most administratively closed cases represent people who entered at the U.S.-Mexico border and should have been sent to Immigration Court. For whatever reason, a court case was not initiated, and so they filed affirmatively for asylum. For the last couple years, the Asylum Offices have been reviewing their case loads and sending these people to Immigration Court. Admin closed cases could also include people who obtained their Green Card some other way or who left the United States.
The increase in admin closures means that grants and denials account for a smaller percentage of total decisions, and so to get a better sense of how the Asylum Offices are deciding cases under Trump 2.0, we should remove admin closures from the calculation. Also, President Trump took office almost four months into FY2025, and so in order to determine the asylum grant rate under his Administration, we need to exclude decisions from the first quarter of FY2025 (when Mr. Biden was still President). To do that, I will assume that cases were approved and denied during this period at the same rate as in FY2024 (this is where the math comes in).
The result of my calculations is that grant rates at the Asylum Offices have dropped significantly since President Trump took office. Excluding cases that were administratively closed, the asylum grant rate for the first eight months of the Trump Administration was 22.8%. Compare that to a 75.1% grant rate in FY2024, 64.5% in FY2023, and 32.9% in FY2022.
Why the asylum grant rate has dropped so quickly and so steeply is a topic for another day. But what seems clear is that the Administration’s broad-based attack on immigration has not spared the Asylum Offices. What’s also clear is that some applicants are still receiving asylum. If people gather evidence, address weak points in their case, and prepare for their interview, it is still possible to win asylum even in this hostile environment.
Hi Jason,
I am planning on filing the Writ of Mandamus in October. I renewed my EAD based on affirmative pending asylum in February 2025. My EAD will expire this December. I am from one of the 19 banned countries. Do you think Mandamus could help me get my EAD?
Hopefully, the “hold” on cases from banned countries will be lifted, at least for EADs. The hold on asylum decisions seems to have ended for everyone but people from countries on the banned list. If the hold continues for your country, I do not think a mandamus will help get the EAD. I think you would need a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which would basically argue to the federal court that there is no rational basis for blocking people from getting EADs. Such lawsuits are normally brought by non-profits or large law firms, as they require more work and are thus much more expensive than a standard mandamus lawsuit. The lawsuits are usually on behalf of a “class” of people – everyone affected by the hold. I have not heard about any lawsuits pending at the moment, but I would not be surprised if there are such cases pending. If one succeeds, we would hear about it. All that said, you may want to talk to a lawyer who does mandamus cases to see what they think or if they could assist, as they may know more about whether a mandamus case might help somehow. Take care, Jason
Thank you! I was wondering if I could expedite or use Mandamus on the basis that I am a doctoral student who needs to start a paid internship (in the mental health field) to graduate. Do you think that would make a difference?
Based on a new USCIS announcement, it is possible that the hold on banned-country EAD applications has been lifted, but that is not clear. You can see the USCIS announcement here: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/update-on-uscis-strengthened-screening-and-vetting, and this indicates that the hold is lifted for “certain employment authorization documents.” Unfortunately, we do not know what that means. We will have to see what happens with EADs for people from banned countries. I am not sure you would want to try a mandamus yet, but you could try to expedite. One basis for expediting is extreme financial hardship, and so maybe you could make that argument. I wrote about expediting in general on January 29, 2020 (you can also try reaching out to your Congress person for help with this). Again, we do not know for sure whether the hold on EADs for banned-country people has ended, and if it has not ended, the expedite request (and the mandamus) will not work, but given that you can try to expedite yourself and that it is free, it may be worth a try. Take care, Jason
I have been on TPS and since it has been cancelled, I applied for asylum on January 16. My interview has been scheduled on March 3, 2026 for April 13, 2026. It was a quick turnaround. I read the cancellation of TPS notice from DHS in which they acknowledged that the conditions in Yemen are not safe. I also filed for asylum on account of religion and politics. How do you think I should best prepare for my asylum interview, which is coming up in a month?
Also my interview was scheduled in an Immigration Court in Detroit. I thought that I would be interviewed in the USCIS Asylum Office in Chicago, but I am being interviewed in Immigration Court. Who would interview me, an Asylum Officer or an Immigration Judge? And is it a cause for concern that I would be interviewed in an Immigration Court, and not an Asylum Office with USCIS?
I have never heard about an asylum interview being scheduled at an Immigration Court. It could be scheduled at a USCIS Field Office, but maybe the court and the Field Office are in the same location? It would only be a court case if you have received a Notice to Appear in court. If you think something is suspicious here (and based on your message, it may be), talk to a lawyer, who may have more info than me about how things are being done in Detroit. Take care, Jason
And here is a follow up question: Also my interview was scheduled in an Immigration Court in Detroit. I thought that I would be interviewed in the USCIS Asylum Office in Chicago, but I am being interviewed in Immigration Court. Who would interview me, an Asylum Officer or an Immigration Judge? And is it a cause for concern that I would be interviewed in an Immigration Court, and not an Asylum Office with USCIS?
The quick turnaround time is normal for a new case. Make sure all evidence is submitted at least one week in advance of the interview and bring a copy of the evidence with you, in case the asylum office has lost it (which is common). I wrote about the asylum interview on September 8, 2016 and that might help, but it would also be worthwhile to at least consult with a lawyer to get an idea about whether there are any issues with the case that need to be addressed. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason
I would like to inquire about the current processing time for Form I-730 (Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition).
1. What is the typical timeframe for approval?
2. Have there been any recent laws, policy changes, or regulations that may affect processing times?
3. I submitted my application six (6) months ago. Is this still considered within normal processing time?
4. At what point is it appropriate to submit a case inquiry with USCIS regarding a delay?
Thank you for your guidance.
1 – In recent years, it seems to be 1 year or a bit longer plus consular processing, which varies by country but is at least a few months. 2 – Although the travel ban does not apply to refugees, we have been hearing about I-730 denials at the consular stage. I do not remember the exact reasons, but they seemed pretextual. In other words, there was no valid reason to block people, but they were blocked anyway. In other cases, people are still getting through, and since we do not have any data from the government, it is not really clear to me what is happening. 2 – I do not think so, but if the I-730 beneficiary is in the US, and from a “banned” country, USCIS may hold the decision until new security checks are put into place. 3 – Yes. 4 – Since processing times for I-730 petitions are not posted at the USCIS website, I guess you can try to inquire at any time. I doubt an inquiry will work at this stage, but there may be no harm in trying. You might also try inquiring through your Congress person. You can find their contact info if you follow the link under Resources called House of Representatives or Senate. You can also try to expedite the I-730. I wrote about expediting in general on January 29, 2020. Again, I think it will be very difficult to get USCIS to expedite, but I don’t think there is any harm in trying. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I recently found out while trying to inquire with USCIS about my spouse’s I-730 case status who is in the US that we cannot even submit outside of processing time inquiry for any I-730 case on the USCIS website anymore. It feels like they just abandoned or discarded this form/benefit. Below is the error message we get when trying to submit an inquiry for the I-730 form.
Data Entry Errors
The service or article you selected is not compatible with “Form Number” I730, “Form Sub Type” selected and “Receipt Number”
Yes, for some reason they stopped showing a processing time for I-730 cases. I still think you can make an inquiry. Either by calling USCIS and trying to reach a human being (800-375-5283) or by asking your Congress person for help. Ultimately, you can file a mandamus lawsuit, but I would think not until the I-730 has been pending for at least a year. Take care, Jason
Thanks for your reply Jason. My spouse’s I730 has been pending since October 2024. Do you think its a good time to file a Mandamus. We are not from a country on the banned list. I tried to inquire with USCIS live person using chat and they said nothing could be done and best I can do is just wait. The last status update on the case was on March 1st 2025 that the case was transferred to local office for interview.
You might try a Congressional inquiry first. The more inquiries you have made, the stronger your mandamus case, since you can show the judge that you tried to resolve the problem in the “normal” way, but USCIS was not responsive. Otherwise, I think you could do a mandamus case at this point. Talk to a lawyer who does such cases to be sure. Take care, Jason
Hello.
1.are they people from 39 partial or complete travel ban countries getting work permit or refugee travel document now
2 as I see the travel ban will go on until Trump leaves office in 2029 how do the administration expect these people going to survive without work permit it’s hard to understand
3. For those with Green card application pending, have you seen lately if mandamus work for these people on travel ban. It’s truly frustrating to see other getting benefits and US not simply because we were born a place the administration doesn’t like
1 – As far as I know, they are not currently being issued work permits. 2 – USCIS made a decision to block all benefits for people from “banned” countries, but this decision is independent of the travel ban, and will supposedly be lifted once new security measures are put into place related to these applications. 3 – I do not think a mandamus would work for such people. They would need to file a lawsuit challenging the USCIS pause, and that would be much more complicated. If the hold lasts for a while, we may see non-profits challenge it in court, but as far as I know, there are no such cases pending at this time. Take care, Jason
Can such thing happen ?
I mean with the recent EAD rule changing…
Some people have to work under table and find unauthorized work.
DHS just cancelled TPS for Yemen and they published a lengthy document about, sharing their rationales about doing so. I quoted what I thought is the relevant passages in the document. How do you read these quotes? What stands out to you, especially for them noting that, yes, Yemen is unsafe, but, no, they won’t renew it, because it is against U.S. national interests? So they delivered a double argument in which they held two contradictory ideas—how do you think they pulled that off? And I am aware that a lawsuit is currently in preparation to dispute this, just like how Syrians did, but under what basis would the lawsuit challenge the TPS cancellation when DHS clearly stated that it is against their notion of U.S. national interests? How can a lawsuit calls that into question?
(1) Of additional significance when evaluating the conditions in Yemen and the ability of Yemeni nationals to safety return to Yemen, a number of Yemeni nationals have requested advance parole documents for travel back to Yemen. This bears directly on the question of whether nationals may safely travel there. From 2018 through 2025, there were 142 applications for travel to Yemen.32 Additionally, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is currently removing aliens to Yemen.33
(2) Based on the Department’s review, the Secretary has further determined that while Yemen still experiences extraordinary and temporary conditions, the termination of Yemen’s Temporary Protected Status designation is required because it is contrary to the national interest to permit Yemeni nationals (or nationals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Yemen) to remain temporarily in the United States. By statute, the Secretary is prohibited from designating a country for Temporary Protected Status or extending a Temporary Protected Status designation on the basis of extraordinary and temporary conditions if she finds that “permitting the aliens to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the United States.”3
(3) DHS acknowledges that there may appear to be some tension between its determination under INA section that requiring the return of Yemeni nationals (and aliens having no nationality who last resided in Yemen) does not pose a serious threat to their personal safety due to an armed conflict; and its separate determination under INA section, that extraordinary and temporary conditions in Yemen that prevent Yemeni nationals from returning in safety may remain. DHS notes, however, that these are two separate statutory bases, each requiring its own determination based on separate facts. Accordingly, DHS does not believe there is inconsistency in finding that armed conflict does not prevent Yemenis from safely returning, while also finding that extraordinary and temporary conditions may continue to exist. DHS further notes that under the second prong of INA section, the Secretary must consider whether permitting Yemeni nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the United States.
(4) Additionally, DHS records indicate some of the Yemeni nationals who have applied for or been granted Temporary Protected Status have been under administrative investigation for risk to national security or public safety, or for attempting to obtain immigration benefits through fraud or misrepresentation. DHS accordingly took account of those cases in making the decision to terminate TPS, as fraud and egregious public safety violations are contrary to the national interest.
(5) DHS recognizes that Yemen Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries continue to be authorized to work during the 60-day transition period.88 Accordingly, through this Federal Register notice, DHS automatically extends the validity of certain Employment Authorization Documents previously issued under the Temporary Protected Status designation of Yemen through May 3, 2026. Therefore, as proof of continued employment authorization through May 3, 2026, Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries can show their Employment Authorization Documents that have the notation A-12 or C-19 under Category and a “Card Expires” date of March 3, 2023, September 3, 2024, and March 3, 2026.
To challenge an administrative decision, such as ending TPS, a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act must show that there is no rational basis for the decision. In this case, I think this is all DHS has to try to show a rational basis for the decision to end TPS. The justifications they provide seem to me a weak rationale. Some people return to Yemen with Advance Parole. Some Yemeni people possibly committed fraud. None of that negates the situation in Yemen, which is the primary basis for TPS. We will have to see what the courts say, but if these are the justifications for ending Yemeni TPS, it seems to me that there is a good chance a court will block DHS from ending the program, as courts have done for other TPS countries. Take care, Jason
Thank you for your non-stop support of Asylum Seeker Community Jason,
I filed my asylum back in 2013
married in 2024 and applied for I-485
Asylum interview in March 2025 and decision pending
I-130 Interview in July 2025 and Approved, I-485 Pending
I filed for EAD concurrently with I-485 and never issued, I-765 expired and had to quit my job in December 2025 due to work permit expiration, since I’m from Iran, do i have any option to file a complaint under any of my active cases or better wait till hear somthing back from them?
Godbless and Thank you!
USCIS has placed a hold on decisions for Iranians, and I think the only way to challenge that would be a federal lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act, essentially arguing that the hold is illegal. Such a lawsuit would be very expensive, and normally, cases like that are brought by non-profits or large law firms on a pro bono (free) basis. In practical terms, there is probably not much to do except wait to see if the hold ends. I am hoping USCIS will end the hold on work permits soon, and it is possible that there are pending lawsuits related to that, though I do not know. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
I see someone on reddit got interview officer notes thru FOIA report, showing checklist assessment. However mine came up with redactions of documents and proof that i provided but no other checklist or recommended decision from officer. Does it mean they might be withholding that information or decision is simply not ready yet? Interview was done last June and still pending for decision
The FOIA responses I see seem to be pretty inconsistent. Usually, officer notes are redacted, but sometimes, they are not redacted. It is possible to challenge redactions in court, though given the time and expense, few people do that. I doubt there is any intention behind the redactions in your case, and it is probably just the regular procedure, but I do not know for certain. Take care, Jason
1) do you think the current AG is better or worse than the last AG ? Is Garland a better AG ?
2) regardless of the law, which appears to have make people who suffered or fear private harm ineligible for asylum, do you personally feel that people who are suffered or fear private harm should be eligible for asylum ? (Of course assuming otherwise eligible)
The current AG seems like an utter sycophant. As for private harm, that has long been a basis for asylum if the government is unable and unwilling to protect you, and if you cannot internally relocate. Take care, Jason
Not too many people can have a direct and straightforward feedback of government employees these days.
Hi Jason,
I’m Syrian and have had a green card through approved asylum since September 2021. I filed the green card applications myself for me and my family. Now that I’m preparing to apply for N-400 naturalization, I have a few questions and would appreciate your guidance:
1. As a Syrian, am I still eligible to file Form N-400? Do you see any concerns with Syrians applying at this time?
2. Since my green card date is September 2021, can I apply in June 2026 (90 days before the 5-year mark)?
3. I’m comfortable preparing immigration applications myself and usually consult a lawyer for review. Do you recommend hiring an attorney to file the N-400 from scratch considering the recent immigration executive orders? or is self-filing reasonable in my case with a lawyer review?
4. Do you have any posts or resources relevant to my situation?
5. My kid is 15 years old. I assume I don’t have to file an N400 application for him. He will get naturalized through my N400 if I get mine issued before he turns 18, correct?
Thank you for your support.
1 – You are eligible to file. Syria is on the “banned” country list, and so at the moment, you cannot get a decision from USCIS. Hopefully, by the time the case is processed, USCIS will have made whatever security adjustments they plan to make, and they will be able to issue a decision. 2 – That is correct, assuming you meet all other requirements, such as having enough time in the US, no long breaks in presence, no criminal issues, etc. 3 & 4 – It’s up to you. As long as everything is consistent between the different forms (I-589, I-485, N-400, visa applications, etc.), and there are no problematic issues, you should probably be ok. I wrote about citizenship for asylees on December 2, 2020 and that might be helpful. That said, it may help to have a lawyer review everything and prepare you for the interview, as things are very unpredictable these days. 5 – If the child has a green card and lives with you, he will automatically become a citizen if you become a citizen before the child turns 18. He can then either file for a passport or file form N-600 to get a citizenship certificate. Also, do make sure that any dependents from your asylum case have their green card before you become a citizen; otherwise, they will be blocked from getting their own GC until they take further action (called a nunc pro tunc asylum), and this will cause a long delay. Take care, Jason
Should people who are convicted of PSC be eligible for asylum ?
I imagine it would depend on the crime and the reason they need protection, but such people could potentially qualify for Withholding of Removal or protection under the Torture Convention. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Is it possible to obtain AP in current climate (pause in asylum cases) for Iranians if it’s an emergency family health issue? If possible, and I visit family in third country, is it possible to face issues upon re-entering?
Many lawyers are recommending that asylum seekers or others with pending cases do not travel with AP. I personally have not heard about any cases where someone with AP was unable to re-enter or was detained upon entry. Maybe there are such cases, but I have not heard about them on any attorney list serves or from any of my clients. I do think there is some risk, as the government has become unpredictable and is being very cruel towards non-citizens. And so I think anyone who wants to travel has to balance the possible risk against the need to travel. There should be no problem applying for AP, and once you get it, check the news to see if there are any examples of people having problems re-entering with AP. Also, keep an eye out for any additional restrictions on people from Iran, as we are obviously in a tense relationship with that country, and if there is a war, it could affect how Iranians are treated in terms of AP and immigration in general. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I read your post and like many others, I always follow your posts. I applied for EAD renewal on Dec 2024, and I still have my receipt. For people like me, based this new rule if it goes into effect, we can still get our work permits right ? This is a nightmare situation for us and I am the only one working with my family. I don’t know when this will be over.
The new rule would not apply to EAD renewals and so it would not affect you. That said, the automatic extension for EADs that people used to receive on their receipt has been ended for future applications, and so once you get the new EAD, you should probably file immediately for the new one, and that way, hopefully avoid any gaps in employment eligibility. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
Can you apply for EAD renewal C08 before the USCIS official recommendation of 180 days? This was allowed in 2024 with no problems but will this be an automatic rejection after April 2026? I am asking since there are automatic renewals and if you are trying to avoid a gap in employment, if it’s possible.
As far as I know, you can do that, and I think it is a good idea to apply for a new EAD as soon as you get your EAD. The reason is that the automatic extensions have been ended and that processing times are slow. While this may result in overlapping EADs, that is probably better than having a gap in employment eligibility. Take care, Jason
What is the underlying structure behind this new chaos? Can you paint a theory of how the current immigration system is working? What are the rules of the game? We have bits and pieces, here and there, but what is the theory that explain how the whole hangs together?
I think the goal is to harm immigrants and asylum seekers, deport as many as possible, and hope that many more leave due to the hostile environment. For politicians, it is easy to scapegoat and lie about immigrants, as they are a relatively powerless group in our society, and it is a way for these politicians to gain more power. Of course, one of the many unintended consequences of this campaign is that when you take away individual rights from non-citizens, you endanger individual rights for everyone. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Thanks for the info.
I applied for asylum on Dec 16, 2025 and received an interview notice within a month. I completed my interview last week on Feb 17,2026. My EAD Clock reaches150 days on May 15, 2026. I’m wondering how this rule will affect me? Will it go to effect on April 24, 2026? If so how does it affect people like me who have applied asylum before the rule and finished their interview?
It is not entirely clear, but part B.1. of the Executive Summary states that “DHS proposes to apply these existing regulations to asylum applications filed after the effective date of this rule,” so I think for people who filed before April 24, 2026, like you, they can still file for the EAD after 150 days. I expect that the I-765 web page itself will be updated with this information when and if the rule goes into effect, but as I read this, I think you will be eligible to apply for the EAD after 150 days (assuming you did not cause any other delay or are ineligible for any other reason). Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek your advice regarding my green card application status. I am from Pakistan and have concerns about whether I might be subject to any bans that could affect my application.
Specifically, I would like to know:
– Am I potentially banned from obtaining a green card due to my nationality?
‘ If there are any restrictions or circumstances that could be affecting my situation.
– What steps can I take to expedite the process of my application?
I appreciate your time and expertise on this matter. Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to your guidance.
Thank you
1 – You are not banned. Immigration visas for people from Pakistan are blocked, but this is for people outside the U.S. Pakistan is not on the list of “banned” countries and Pakistanis are not blocked by USCIS from obtaining a GC. 2 – Not that I know of, but cases at USCIS are often moving slowly. 3 – I doubt you can expedite the process, but I wrote about expediting in general on January 29, 2020. I also wrote about asylees applying for a GC and some common mistakes on November 13, 2017. If you can avoid an errors in your application, that will help speed the process. Take care, Jason
Wish they had separated denials and referrals.
Probably the large majority are referrals, as the only people who get denied are those who are still in lawful non-immigrant status. Take care, Jason
Thank you so much. I really appreciate your help.
Regarding the analysis of adjudication data, it is worth noting that from 2022-2025, there were 21,370 adjudications of Afghan OAR Parolee asylum cases. That accounts for a huge portion of the actual adjudications. That group has had a 96% USCIS grant rate and a 95% approvals (which would have been over half of all approvals during that 2022-2025 time period) and started adjudicating more non-OAR parolees again, which have a much lower grant rate than OAR Parolees.
Numbers referred to here can be found in the Ahmad Settlement Agreement reports released by USCIS on their website.
This doesn’t mean we have enough info to take away many concrete conclusions, and of course falling grant rates likely have other contributing factors besides running out of Afghan OAR cases, but given the OAR statistics and numbers of OAR and non-OAR cases in these timeframes, it seems statistically impossible that transitioning from a huge amount of OAR adjudications to non-OAR adjudications wouldn’t account for a major piece of this puzzle.
Thanks for this helpful post!
Excellent point – Thank you. I didn’t have much time to think about the “why” here, but this would certainly help account for the jump in approval rates in FY2023 and FY2024. The FY2022 rate is lower, and maybe serves as a better baseline, as there would not have been many Afghan cases adjudicated during that time frame (from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022). Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, how likely is this rule to be blocked by the court, if challenged.
I think there is a decent chance that it will be blocked, at least at the lower court level. With long delays (that are not the fault of the applicant) and the inability to work, asylum seekers will effectively be prevented from filing for asylum, which is obviously contrary to the intent of the asylum law. We will see what happens, but I do think the new EAD rule can be challenged in court. Take care, Jason