Lawrence “Larry” Burman served as an Immigration Judge from 1998 until his recent retirement at the end of 2025. The Asylumist caught up with Judge Burman to discuss his career, the changes he’s witnessed over the years, and his view of the Immigration Courts today.
Asylumist: Thank you for talking with me. Let’s start at the beginning. Tell me about your career and how you got interested in immigration law.
J. Burman: My first job after law school was with the Maryland General Assembly. I helped draft bills and served as counsel to the Budget and Tax Committee. This was a part-time position, and I started my own private law practice as well. I ended up doing mostly bankruptcy law. What I liked about it was that bankruptcy law is happy. As soon as you file a case, your client gets immediate relief. They think you’re a genius. I also did some immigration law and wanted to do more. I was always interested in history, politics, international relations, and geography. Immigration and especially asylum law was a natural fit with these interests.
When I attended law school, there were no immigration law classes. They just didn’t exist at most schools. I gained some immigration law experience clerking at my uncle’s firm. I remember one case where we prepared a labor certification for a former Colombian colonel. He had a business buying surplus weapons and then selling them. Basically, he was a gun runner. It was all legal, but it was a bizarre introduction to immigration.
Prior to law school, I had four years in the Army and after that, 18 years in the National Guard. I started in the armored calvary, driving a tank. It was not as fun as it sounds. Then I transferred to the Chemical Corp. I served as the operations officer for the nuclear emergency team. If someone dropped a bomb, we would have to get on it. We held live radiation exercises every year in New Mexico. We would train for situations like when a plane carrying a nuke crashes. I also ended up running the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defense School at Ft Meade.
Asylumist: So how did you end up working in the immigration field?
J. Burman: I knew the INS District Counsel in Baltimore. He called one day and asked if I could suggest anyone who might want to work there. I suggested Denise Slavin (who later became an Immigration Judge). At the time, Denise’s roommate was dating my brother. The District Counsel liked her, and later asked me to suggest someone else. I was getting bored with bankruptcy law, and so I nominated myself.
I started at INS in 1988. In those days, the trial attorneys litigated in Immigration Court and federal court, we advised investigations and examinations, we wrote briefs for every case and every appeal. This was before government appeals turned into one liners: “We adopt and affirm the Immigration Judge’s decision.” I also had extended details at the Office of Immigration Litigation and INS headquarters. At HQ, I worked in enforcement and advised the anti-smuggling unit. I even went on some raids.
I was interested in an Immigration Judge (IJ) position. I applied three times and was rejected three times. The fourth time, I knew I wouldn’t be hired, and so I felt completely relaxed. In fact, I was so relaxed that I arrived late for the interview. Maybe that’s why I got the job.
I started as an IJ in Los Angeles in 1998. I had four years there and then eight years in Memphis. In 2010, I came to Arlington, VA (the court later moved to Annandale), where I worked until retirement.
Asylumist: You must have had many memorable cases over your 25+ years on the bench. Do any particularly stand out?
J. Burman: One asylum case that got a lot of attention was a family of homeschoolers from Germany. The German government threatened to separate the children from their parents or jail the parents if they refused to send their children to school. The case was extremely well handled on both sides. The homeschool association lawyer was unbelievable knowledgeable. I felt sad to rule against the DHS attorney, but I granted asylum. DHS appealed and the BIA reversed my decision. The case eventually reached the Sixth Circuit, where I hoped they would reverse the Board, but they affirmed. The family was ultimately allowed to remain in the U.S. after they reached an agreement with the government, and I heard that very recently, the BIA reopened their case.
Another memorable case was for an Iranian man in Los Angeles. At first, he seemed to have a good case, but it turned out that he was supporting the Ayatollah and he was in touch with the Iranian regime. The government attorney brought in State Department security people, and they had photos of this man meeting with Iranian officials. I would have granted him asylum, but after we got the government’s evidence, I denied him, as a liar and for assisting the regime in the persecution of others.
Asylumist: This brings up the question of fraud. How much of a problem is fraud in the Immigration Court system?
J. Burman: I think there is not much fraud. There is some puffery. Not all cases can show a well-founded fear under the law, but they are mostly people afraid of being killed.
The really fraudulent cases tend to get granted unless they are investigated. In the old days, we investigated asylum cases. Each case got a letter from the State Department. Those letters were very useful.
When I was a government attorney, we could send an investigator to look into the case. For example, for a marriage case, they could visit the applicant’s house. It was like being a real lawyer. The huge volume of asylum cases generated by the Salvadoran civil war killed investigations. It’s a shame because things need to be investigated. Now, DHS does not have the resources to investigate a case.
DHS also lacks the ability to impeach an applicant unless there is inconsistent evidence in the record. This usually comes from the non-citizen’s own lawyer. You have to wonder why some evidence gets submitted. Don’t submit evidence if it hurts your case.
Asylumist: There have been a lot of changes over your years on the bench. One is that the number of IJs increased from about 200 to more than 700. How have those changes impacted the job?
J. Burman: When I got to Virginia, there were six judges. We used to have a yearly conference and we’d meet judges from other cities. When there were 200 IJs, I knew about half of them, but now, we don’t know the other judges so well.
I also loved traveling to work on cases in different cities, but TV sets in the courtroom ended travel forever.
Asylumist: The second Trump Administration has brought even more changes, including firing many judges and lots of new rules that make it more difficult for asylum seekers. What’s your take on the developments in the last year?
J. Burman: Firing people was completely new. I don’t think it is legal. All those people are suing, but the Trump Administration doesn’t care. They know the bill will come due during some future Administration.
There was no need to fire most of the people. I guess the Administration thought they were too liberal. They seemed to be firing based on asylum grant rates. According to Immigration Court data, I granted 88% of asylum cases in Arlington and 57% in Annandale. The Administration doesn’t want anyone who grants 57% of cases, and I am happy I was able to retire before I got fired.
Asylumist: Do you have a sense of why your grant rate—and other IJ’s grant rates—dropped in recent years?
J. Burman: One reason is that the cases got worse when President Biden opened the border. Many of the people coming to the U.S. simply had weak claims for asylum.
During the Trump Administration, there have been many new decisions from the BIA. As a judge, you have to follow the Board’s decisions. An IJ can’t ignore the BIA; that would be insubordination.
We also had to deal with crazy things like the Asylum Cooperation Agreements (ACAs), which allow DHS to deport asylum seekers to a third country. I don’t see how those could be legal, and I suspect the federal courts will do something about it. I personally never had to do an ACA case, as I set all my ACA cases to future dates, after my retirement. In my only ACA case, DHS moved to terminate after the case had already been litigated. I denied the motion and granted asylum.
DHS is now treating almost everyone who came through the Southern border as an arriving alien (arriving aliens have fewer rights than non-citizens who have entered the country). That’s insane. They are being detained and unless they have a lawyer who can file a habeas petition, they cannot get released. Even if they succeed on a habeas, I am not confident that non-citizens will get a fair bond hearing from an IJ. I don’t think IJs are being told to deny, but if you grant too many bonds, you will lose your job. I have reason to hope that a federal court will eventually block the arriving-alien rule, as it is not true under the law that someone already in the U.S. is an arriving alien.
We also have things like the one-year asylum filing rule. If you look at the legislative history, the rule was not meant to deny real cases. I’ve denied asylum based on the one-year rule, but if there was wiggle room, I would wiggle.
These days, if a judge wiggles, he loses his job. Wiggle room may not exist anymore, but it should. All law needs wiggle room to obtain justice. That reminds me of my favorite quote, which is from Rohinton Mistry’s 1995 novel A Fine Balance:
The Law is a grim, unsmiling thing. Not Justice, though. Justice is witty and whimsical and kind and caring.
That is my philosophy. But now, humanity is going by the wayside.
Asylumist: With all these changes, how were the Immigration Judges doing by the time you left?
J. Burman: Morale was low. Many judges were fired. Others left because they were disgusted. Good judges were constantly worried about being fired. And of course, firing people is a brilliant way to make them do what you want. That is how dictatorships operate. They frighten people and the people do what the leader wants without being asked.
I suppose that IJs who don’t believe in due process are doing well, but it is very depressing to lose due process of law. Judges have a hard time making independent honest decisions. They are always looking over their shoulder and waiting to be fired.
The Immigration Courts will never be like the old days. It used to be a good job. We were truly independent; no one told us how to rule.
Asylumist: To fill the gap after they fired so many judges, the Executive Office for Immigration Review has been bringing in military lawyers to serve as Temporary Immigration Judges. How has that been?
J. Burman: The military judges seem to be pretty good. What the Administration did not realize is that military judges are careful about due process. There is more due process in the military justice system than in the civilian system.
One Temporary IJ was fired for granting too many cases. He commented to me that the training for that position was too political. The Administration is looking for people who are ideological, but I do not know how they can determine that in advance.
Asylumist: Another big change we’ve seen in the last year is ICE detaining people in Immigration Court. Did you have any experience with that?
J. Burman: No one was arrested in my courtroom. But there was a janitor at the Annandale Immigration Court and she would hide whenever ICE was around. It happens that I granted her asylum case years before, and so she had lawful status. I asked why she was hiding and she said she was afraid. ICE is purposely trying to scare people.
Asylumist: Have you noticed any changes with the Trial Attorneys (the prosecutors in Immigration Court)?
J. Burman: Most TAs are new and they don’t stay around for very long. Once you get to know them, they leave. If the TAs are there for a few months, they’re a senior attorney. I guess they don’t enjoy the job and they can apply for other positions, for example at DHS headquarters.
Asylumist: Looking back, what do you think of your career as an Immigration Judge?
J. Burman: It was a good job. I had a good career, but I don’t think I want to be associated with EOIR at this point. I don’t think about it much, but it is kind of depressing. I’m glad that I’m not there anymore.
Asylumist: I’ll certainly miss seeing you in Court, but I wish you all the best in retirement.
J. Burman: Thank you. Live long and prosper!
Hi Jason first, thank you very much for helping asylee. I came here in F2 and applied for asylum within one year of arrival, and got interviewed after 2 years of filing in 2019. At the end of the interview the officer told me My case can be approved or denied but it is not sent to the court. After One year, I called them to ask about the decision but they told me it can take longer, even than I never got the decision. In 2023 I was approved for h4 b, and in 2025 I renewed the asylum EAD as well. My H4B will expire in July 2026, and I am planning to file for its renewal. Does my renewed asylee EAD obstructs the renewal of H4B? Will they deny my H4b renewal? Would it be better to file for H4B renewal, or stay with my asylee EAD for some time? If I stay on my asylee status now, and if I were sent to the court later, could I apply for my H4B renewal later? Can you please suggest me what would be the best solution?
In general, I do not see why an asylum-pending EAD should affect an H-4 visa. If you are in valid H-4 status and your asylum case is denied, you should not be referred to court, though I have seen some examples where people should not be referred to court, but are sent to court anyway. I think if you want to remain in H-4 status, you should renew, especially if you have an option to get a green card based on employment. That said, it may make sense to talk this through with a lawyer, as I do not know all the specifics of your case or if there are any reasons why renewing the H-4 might not make sense, or might not be possible. Take care, Jason
we , as a family applied for asylum in 2016 and last year after interview were referred to the immigration court . Have two daughters and elder daughter , who was also on Fi and HIB visa along with asylum got married this year and last week got green Card through marriage. the younger one is freshman in college . Now my elder daughter wants to know can she visit out home country but i feel if she visits it might hurt our court case , what do you think should i allow my elder daughter to visit before our immigration master hearing in 2028
It depends on the case. If you state that your whole family is in danger, and then she goes back, it could undermine your case. However, if the harm you face does not apply to your daughter, then returning for a visit may not affect your case. I would note that if your Master Hearing is not until 2028, your final hearing may be a year or two after that, and so if it would damage your case, it will be a long time before your daughter can return to her country. Take care, Jason
I am a dependent green card holder through asylum, when we file our asylum application, my spouse as a principal application file within the one year but i as a dependent have exceeded the one-year deadline, eventually the both the asylum and green card were approved without any issue. i am to file the naturalization in few days, is there any possibility for this one-year deadline be an issue
I do not see how that would be an issue. The one-year bar applies to the principal applicant and not the dependent. Also, that issue was already examined when the asylum case was approved, and so I do not see that it would come up during the naturalization process. Take care, Jason
My story:
I got my Green Card today after filing WOM pro-se and winning it, No Interview.
Quick Summary:
1.Visa overstay and applied for asylum 11 years ago.
2.NY Interview in USCIS 2019, referral to Court.
3.IH in 2022, and it took me 2 years, TWO YEARS to get my decision…..
4.Applied for GC 6 months later by myself.
5.Applied for WOM 13 months after initial application.
No Interview, No RFE(applied with Medicals).
From Approval to GC in hands 7 days.
Good luck everyone, your life is your choice. Don’t rely on attorneys only, use your brain and do your research.
After serving defendants GC got approved in 10 days.
Congrats man, seriously respect 💪
I have a few questions if you don’t mind:
Did you file the Writ of Mandamus by yourself or with a lawyer?
If you did it pro se, how did you prepare it? Any templates or resources you used?
Which court did you file in and who did you list as defendants?
How did you serve them exactly?
My situation is very similar to yours.
I applied for my Green Card in April 2023 and I’m still waiting with no updates.
Would really appreciate
The U.S. District Court clerk’s office (and clerk’s office website) is a good resource. It may be worth checking their website and even calling or stopping by the court to ask if they have resources to help you with a pro se mandamus case. Take care, Jason
Which court in Boston ?
The U.S. federal district court. You can find the court with jurisdiction over your case here: https://www.uscourts.gov/federal-court-finder/find. Take care, Jason
That is great news – Congratulations! I would only advise others that a Writ of Mandamus works differently depending on where you are. Sometimes, you need to wait longer before filing, and filing a mandamus after “only” 13 months is a bit on the fast side. It is obviously good that it worked in your case, but in other parts of the U.S., people may need to wait longer before being able to successfully mandamus a green card application. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason.
Hope all is well with you. Appreciate you for your help by answering our quarry.
Two weeks ago I had some questions about my family members thanks again for your answer about them.
I still have some questions about my son who just joined IT job with EAD valid till 2028.
We have individual hearing is in Sept/2026, So my questions about his status after the individual hearing.
1. if final hearings approved we good he is good if the case denied what are the other options
he has left? Can he marry US citizen or Green card holders after the case denied ?
2. What will be the situation if we apply to postpone our upcoming final hearing?
Or move from NY to CA or any other states?
Look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks
Jhampa
1 – If the case is denied, you/he can appeal. The appeals process is likely changing, and it could become much faster (the Trump Administration tried to make the change earlier this month, but it is currently held up in court). If the change goes through, appealing will buy people very little time, and so even if he is eligible to get a green card based on marriage, he may not have time to process the case before the court or BIA orders him deported. Also, if he marries, he will immediately be removed as a dependent from his parent’s asylum case. I think if he has other options available, such as marriage, he needs to talk to a lawyer and decide how best to proceed, as he may want to marry now and start the process while he has some time. 2 – You may not be able to postpone the hearing. Moving may cause the case to be delayed, but there is no guarantee about that. If your goal is to postpone the case because you have some other immigration option, you can ask the court for more time, but that is getting more and more difficult to do, and you would be well advised to talk with a lawyer about how to proceed. Take care, Jason
Appreciate you.Thanks Jason
I am a dependent green card holder through asylum, when we file our asylum application, my spouse as a principal application file within the one year but i as a dependent have exceeded the one-year deadline, eventually the both the asylum and green card were approved without any issue. i am to file the naturalization in few days, is there any possibility for this one-year deadline be an issue
I do not see how that would be an issue. The one-year bar applies to the principal applicant and not the dependent. Also, that issue was already examined when the asylum case was approved, and so I do not see that it would come up during the naturalization process. Take care, Jason
Very insightful interview. Thank you Jason!
I wanted to ask of you think it’s risky under this administration to attend i485 interview based on approved asylum alone without a lawyer? I submittefmd the form myself last year and made sure its through and consistent with the i589 and previous visa forms
It does seem like USCIS officers are sometimes more aggressive than they used to be, and if you have a lawyer present, USCIS officers are more likely to behave properly. On the other hand, most USCIS officers are fine, and I still think for people without any complicating issues (criminal problems, national security issues, etc.), it should be ok to attend without a lawyer. It’s really a question of whether you can afford a lawyer and your personal comfort level. If you go yourself, and the officer is behaving badly, you need to stay calm and ask to speak to a supervisor. You might also be able to reschedule the interview so you can bring a lawyer. While I think this type of situation is pretty rare, it is possible and you should be ready for that, just in case. Take care, Jason
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (lawyers: Shayana Kadidal; Angelo Guisado; Baher Azmy) filed a lawsuit against the cancellation of TPS for Yemen. Do you think the CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS good outlet for such a lawsuit?
Here the brief of the lawsuit: https://ccrjustice.org/understanding-temporary-protective-status-tps-and-yemen
Here is the link of the lawsuit itself: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/DoeetalvNoemetalDocketNo126cv02280SDNYMar192026CourtDocket?doc_id=X77PT3RSMK88VBOV29K62GBFGBJ
What is noteworthy here is the following quote: “Secretary Noem’s termination of Yemen TPS did not emerge from the deliberative process Congress required when it created the program. She did not engage with the State Department’s contrary findings and did not explain how a country at war for a decade suddenly became safe to return to. Instead, she stated that continuing the program for Yemenis was against the “national interest”—a rationale no prior Secretary had ever used to end TPS in the program’s 35-year history. The agency’s own findings give up the game: the Notice concedes that “extraordinary and temporary conditions” still prevent Yemenis from returning safely, then terminates their protection anyway.”
How do you think the Supreme Court will react to the rationale that TPS was ended in the grounds of “national interest” even though DHS agrees that the conditions in Yemen are dangerous? Does the fact that the rationale was not used before is a solid ground for the Supreme Court to override the cancellation decision? Is it even within the power of the Supreme Court to override DHS’s decision to cancel?
The brief also notes the following: “Defendant Noem dismissed TPS as an “immigration scheme” and branded immigrants “foreign invaders” and “leeches.” The administration has systematically dismantled humanitarian protection for nationals of non-white countries while fast-tracking refugee admissions for white South Africans.”
Is this true? Does the current administration fast-tracking refugee admissions for white South Africans? I do not think that white South Africans have a TPS. With the TPS, it seems that they are cancelling for everybody. So I don’t understand why they would bring up this fact—are they saying that the cancellation for TPS is based on racism? But according to the U.S. government, Yemenis are White because all Middle Eastern are classified as White. So the government considers Yemenis as White but I do not understand why white South Africans will receive better treatment and white Yemenis don’t. What do you think?
Under the Administrative Procedures Act (the APA), there must be a ration basis for regulatory changes, such as ending TPS. Perhaps the Trump Administration is testing the waters, but deliberately failing to provide a rational basis for ending TPS, and then hoping that the Supreme Court will accept the change, which they might. If so, it will be yet another expansion of the Executive Branch powers at the expense of the other branches of government and a further eroding of our democracy. As for white people from South Africa, the Administration is bringing them here as refugees (though apparently some have already returned to South Africa), but I do not see what that has to do with TPS. Take care, Jason
In your legal mind, does their “against U.S. national interests” amount to a rational basis for regulatory changes? I understand the implications on democracy but I am asking about predictions and educated guesses. Do you think the Supreme Court will accept the change of expanding the Executive Branch power? That is, how would the Supreme Court go about making the decision—will they have to follow objective laws and standards, or is the whole deliberation subjective and depends on the ideological and political sensibilities of the judges? Is the matter black and white or is it a gray area that allows the Supreme Court to let this expansion occur? Again, I am not asking implications to any erosion to democracy, only asking about educated guesses on how the Supreme Court will weigh into the matter.
I agree with you that I don’t understand why the lawsuit brought up South Africa in a TPS discussion about Yemen; perhaps they want to make the point that there is racism involved in the cancellation of TPS, but that is a stretch, because Yemenis, and all peoples of the Middle East, are considered, according to U.S. laws, as white. So any charge of racism will be hallow. If they said it is xenophobia against foreigners and immigrants, then that is a charge that might hold water.
I really have no particular insight into how the Supreme Court will rule, but my best guess is that they will allow the Executive Branch to end TPS, as they have been largely (but not entirely) deferential to the Executive Branch on the issue of immigration. It is easy to say that the President has particular knowledge about foreign policy and that the courts are not allowed to second guess that knowledge. I suppose they could go the other way, as cancelling Yemeni TPS is a pretty blatant example of the Executive Branch making a change that has no basis in reality. It’s almost as if they are deliberately provoking the courts to see what they can get away with. Even so, the Supreme Court is mostly deferential on immigration and so if I were betting, I would bet that they let the President end TPS for Yemen. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
Thank you very much for all the help you’ve given all of us. You will be blessed for the good work you do.
I filed my affirmative asylum application in January 2025 with the Arlington office, and I’m based in Atlanta. I am still waiting for an interview. I’ve spoken with several lawyers about when they think my interview might be scheduled, and I’ve gotten very different answers. Some say it could happen at any time, while others say that because of the DHS shutdown, USCIS is not sending asylum officers to the Atlanta office to conduct interviews, so they believe it may still be years away. Which view do you think is more likely?
The reason I’m asking is that I’m getting married early next year, and I’m trying to determine whether I should be preparing for adjustment of status through USCIS or through the immigration court, in case my affirmative asylum is denied and I am referred to court before I get married.
Unfortunately, I can’t move up the wedding date because of religious reasons. My religion does not permit a civil marriage before the religious marriage, and even if an exception were possible, my girlfriend would not be comfortable with that. I would greatly appreciate any input you may have.
Thank you!
I think you will just have to accept the unknowns (when the interview will be, when you will get a decision, what the decision will be) and make the best possible decision you can. The only real difference to adjusting status with USCIS and with the Immigration Court is money. There is an extra $1500 fee in court and if you file and pay for the I-485 with USCIS, and then get referred to court, you will probably have to re-pay the I-485 fee ($1440) + the $1500. Given that you can’t change the wedding date, I think you just need to do your best to be ready for the asylum interview, and once you are married, you can decide how best to move forward from there with the marriage-based case, if that is still needed. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I am an F1 student, and I have applied for asylum. I will be graduating soon, and till now I haven’t worked with my EAD since people told me that working outside the university might cause termination of my F1 status.
Now I got a job offer for after my graduation, but the company told me that I have to submit i9 employment verification right now, and I don’t have my OPT to continue with my F1 path right now since I still have a semester to go, so my question is 1) if I use my asylum EAD right now for verification, will that be a problem if I want to apply for OPT later? 2) If I use my asylum EAD now for verification and then later if I get my OPT, will it be possible to switch to OPT? 3) If I use my asylum EAD after graduation, will that limit me from applying for EB1 or EB2 or any F1 advantages later?
And one more question: is it a good idea to renew a passport for OPT or EB1/EB2 after applying for asylum?
Can you please give me some advice on what to do?
Thank you!
Unfortunately, I do not think there is a clear answer to these questions; at least I have not seen one. Sometimes the schools themselves (the international student office) know about these things, and so maybe they know more, but I do not think there is a rule about this. Arguably, simply by filing for asylum, you have already violated your student status and USCIS could invalidate your F-1 status. That is because an F-1 requires that you have no intent to stay permanently in the U.S., and an asylum application is a request to stay permanently. I have not seen USCIS interpret the rules that way, but they potentially could. And so whether working with a c-8 EAD makes you any more vulnerable, I do not know. I have had F-1 clients who worked with their asylum-pending EAD, and they were able to get OPT or change to other statuses, but not recently, and these days, USCIS may be taking a tougher position. Maybe you could raise this concern to the employer and see if they can wait for you to get the OPT work permit? Otherwise, if the school cannot answer these questions, you might hire a lawyer to research the answers. However, I worry that there will be no definitive answer. As to renewing the passport, that can be viewed negatively at your asylum interview: Why would a country that seeks to persecute you be willing to renew your passport? Why would you want a passport from that country? You should be prepared to explain these questions if asked. Of course, if you fear non-state actors, this will be easier to explain than if you fear persecution from the government itself. Take care, Jason
Arguably, simply by filing for asylum, you have already violated your student status and USCIS could invalidate your F-1 status. That is because an F-1 requires that you have no intent to stay permanently in the U.S., and an asylum application is a request to stay permanently.
In my opinion, anybody who bears the intent while applying and holding such a non-immigrant status should be found inadmissible for 2126c…willful misrepresentation and fraud…They should not be able to adjust. They need to be referred to removal proceedings and ordered removal.
False, pushing your hard lined views on immigration still doesn’t make it the law. There is a waivers that makes Asylum applicants who enter on non immigrant visas exempt from misrepresentation accusations. Whether the applicant entered on a B-1 visitor visa or F-1 visa. I do not have time to research it but a simple google search will educate you.
First of all, that waiver is not very easy to get.
It’s a shame that the INA opened too many loop holes for fraudsters and cheaters who sneak their way in using non-immigrant visas while bearing immigration intent.
I find it problematic. A person should go back if they came in as an F-1 student.
We should not have AOS and only have consular processing.
If they are married, they need to apply for immigrant visa at their country’s embassies. I think that’s the right process. AOS has too many loopholes and a person should not have immigration intent while on F-1 or B1b2 visa…INA seriously needs to be reformed
False again. The waiver is not hard to get.The interpretation is that people who fled their countries out of fear of returning may have been in such a position that they’re not able to disclose their original intentions. You just have that persistent view that asylum applications are fraudulent by nature. The world is more complex than you think. And no amount of bending reality will change that fact. Immigration is an essential part of the functioning of this country. You’re just not ok with it because for the last 50years, the people coming were not mostly from Northern Europe. I’ve got news for you. Get used to it.
That is not the way I have ever seen the law implemented, and I think you are simply incorrect on this point. Take care, Jason
Good day, Jason. Could you please share your thoughts? Is it true that if you are a permanent resident (asylum-based) and apply for a Refugee Travel Document (RTD), you will not receive it if you are from a banned country?
Supposedly, all applications for people from banned countries are on hold at USCIS. This only applies to the travel bans from 2025. The ban of 75 countries from January 2026 does not apply to USCIS. I am not sure when this will be lifted, or if it is already partly lifted, as USCIS has not announced anything. I do think that if you want to apply for an RTD, you should do so. Hopefully, the hold will be lifted by the time USCIS processes the application. Take care, Jason
I understand that opposition to 🧊 has reached an all time high…
However, I am not sure the support comes from altruistic mindset…many people observed that without undocumented immigrant showing up for work, the economy is negatively affected. It’s only when the economy is hurt and they were hurt as beneficiaries that they start opposing 🧊enforcement. If undocumented immigrants don’t produce economic gains to people who enjoy their services and if undocumented immigrants ever want to take away high paying jobs, my suspect is that many more people will support 🧊. A lot of us citizens view undocumented immigrants as lower than them…
So, as it has been mentioned here, and I can finally confirm that 🧊 action makes more people support undocumented immigrants…how can other marginalized groups replicate their success ? For example, how could trans people gain more support in the face virulent anti-trans backlash ? Anti 🧊 sentiment has already reached 50%…could trans people obtain such level of support from non-trans people ?
I think the best way to help people learn about others is to meet in person and talk. How to get to that point is not easy, but interacting in real life, as opposed to online, seems very important. Take care, Jason
I do believe that
Hi Jason.
I recently had my hearing in Los Angeles, and the judge granted my asylum application. DHS also waived appeal. However, it has been about over two weeks, and the EOIR system and phone line still show “case pending” with no future hearings. My attorney has not yet received the written order.
Is this kind of delay normal, and based on your experience, how long does it usually take for the system to update and for the written order to be issued?
Thank you very much for your time
In my experience, it does not normally take that long, but it varies, and some judges may be slower than others. At this point, maybe your lawyer can call the judge’s clerk to ask about the order. You can find contact info if you follow the link under Resources called Immigration Court. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason. Have you recently seen any naturalization case approved for someone who had an asylum-based green card? I know all asylum decisions are paused but not sure for people who already have asylum and green card approved if they are still adjudicating and approving N400. Thanks
I think some people are getting decisions in naturalization cases. Some countries are paused (those on the travel ban list from last fall; not the 75 countries banned in January 2026). I do not specifically recall an asylee-green card person getting citizenship, but I have not heard that such cases are on hold. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
I had my asylum interview at the Arlington office six months ago, and my case is currently pending the decision due to background checks. I am also listed as a derivative on my husband’s asylum application. He completed his interview three years ago in a different office, and his case is still pending a decision, too.
He is not willing to file a mandamus lawsuit for his case. If there is no hold on asylum decisions, can I file a mandamus lawsuit for my own asylum decision independently? He is not a derivative in my application.
I understand that six months after an interview may not be a strong basis for filing a mandamus action. However, since I have effectively been in background checks for three years through my husband’s case, would this be considered an unreasonable delay?
Thank you.
There is a hold on all asylum decisions at the moment, and so I think there is no point in filing a mandamus case until the hold ends. You could try to challenge the hold itself (to say that it violates the law). That is called an Administrative Procedures Act lawsuit, but that is a much bigger production and likely very expensive for an individual to do such a case. I would wait to see whether they issue a decision after the hold ends, and if not, then file the mandamus. Whether you can file and have success varies by jurisdiction, and so it depends where you are located. Tt also depends on when you filed your initial asylum case, as well as how long you have waited after your interview and what efforts you made to try to get a decision (I wrote about this issue with some ideas on March 30, 2022). Take care, Jason
If my asylum was denied and I was referred to an Immigration Court, then it would be either very difficult or impossible to change to F-1 or get a Green Card, without leaving the United States—right? But I cannot leave the United States because if I left I won’t be able to come back, due to the full travel ban imposed on my country of origin. I know you said that if my asylum was denied and my TPS was valid during the time of the denial, then I shouldn’t be referred to an Immigration Court, although you predict that they would refer me to an Immigration Court, even though they shouldn’t. That sounds dim and grim. I also applied for EB 2 NIW and I am considering the possibility of doing concurrent adjustment of status there, so that if the petition was approved, I can get the Green Card, without having to travel outside of the United States.
I want to minimize the risk of going to Immigration Court, and the risk of being forced to leave the United States—what would you recommend I should do? For now, TPS is still valid until May 4, 2026 and a lawsuit would extend it. I expect to be admitted to law school soon and obtain an I-20, although, as we discussed, transitioning from TPS to F-1, while having a pending asylum case, is not desirable. What else should I be doing that I am not doing? And what is something that I am doing that I shouldn’t be doing?
I do not know that there is an easy solution, especially given that you cannot leave the U.S. and return due to the travel ban. Maybe you can explain your situation to the school, and if they could be flexible and accept you early, you can start the process of changing to F-1 status sooner? While there are these possible other paths for you (F-1, EB-2), they seem fairly difficult and your most realistic path may still be the asylum case, and so I think you should certainly do everything you can to win that case. Otherwise, talk to a lawyer (as I know you have) to try to think through some ideas. Take care, Jason
I see that you say I can check if the school would accept me early and I can start the process sooner: I can put pressure on the school but I thought that you were saying the changing to F-1 is going to be denied and I might get referred to an Immigration Court, in which case that might have some implications for my upcoming asylum interview on April 13. Did you change your mind about the F-1 change of status? Do you now think it is a sensible course of action and that it might get approved? I can try it out if it won’t have any negative implications on my asylum case, such as sending me to an Immigration Court. As a result, I won’t mess with anything until I do my asylum interview on April 13. Is this good thinking? I am trying to do everything I can to win the asylum case. I already submitted my case. And you said that my case would be adjudicated based on what I submitted. I can retain a lawyer but you said it would serve, as best, as an insurance policy, so I do not see a major need for that. Please let me know if you see any flaws in my thinking.
I do not know whether the F-1 would be denied. It could be, but I have seen examples where it was approved even though the person had a pending asylum case. That was before the Trump Administration, however. I do not see how filing anything related to the F-1 would affect the asylum case. Take care, Jason
Ok, even if the F-1 was denied and got referred to an Immigration Court, do you think that would not affect the asylum case? Also there is hold right now. So applying for F-1 won’t give me that status. I also still don’t have the I-20 from the schools. But when I get admitted, I will try the F-1 route. Is this good thinking?
I think that is reasonable, and you would just need to weigh the risks. If you applied for an F-1 and that resulted in you being sent to court, it would affect the asylum case, as you would then need to seek asylum with the court. Once you are in Immigration Court, the Asylum Office would no longer have jurisdiction to review your case. Take care, Jason
According to several reports in the news, justices of the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the last week of April, with a decision likely by summer, about the DHS’s attempt to remove TPS for Haiti and Syria, but the rulings will have bearings to the 11 other countries. It seems like the Supreme Court will resolve the dispute over the role of courts on supervising TPS cancellations. The lawyers for Syrian and Haitian TPS say that courts have the authority to review whether DHS’s decision making complied with procedural requirements. The lawyers of the government, as Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in briefs to the Supreme Court, that the DHS has determined renewing TPS for Syria and Haiti is contrary to American interests and that the conditions in those two countries are improving.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that the Supreme Court allowed DHS to cancel TPS for Venezuela.
How do you predict the Supreme Court is going to resolve the dispute between the lawsuit brought by the lawyers of Syria and Haiti TPS versus the appeal submitted by the lawyers of the Government? Do you think the Supreme Court justices are more likely than not to follow the Venezuelan precedent, thereby going ahead and cancel TPS for Syria and Haiti, and with that, the TPS of the remaining 11 countries? Or do you think that the case for Syria and Haiti is quite different than the Supreme Court justices might resolve the dispute differently? In other words, what is your educated guess on how the Supreme Court justices would resolve the dispute?
I am not sure that my guess is all that educated, but to some extent, I see the bigger question as whether we are a nation of laws or a nation of men. If we are a nation of laws, then TPS should only end if there is objective evidence of changed country conditions. In that case, it is clear that the situation in Syria that originally led to TPS (the Assad regime killing many thousands of people) has changed, though that country certainly does not appear to be very safe. Even so, I could see TPS ending (though in my personal opinion, it should not end, as the situation is still dangerous). In Haiti, I do not see what change has occurred, and in fact, violence and lawlessness seems worse than ever, so I do not see how an objective application of the law would allow TPS to end. All that said, the Supreme Court is very deferential to the Executive Branch on matter of foreign policy, and they may decide that they (the Supreme Court) do not have the expertise to make foreign policy decisions and if the President wants to end TPS, that is his decision. In other words, that at least with regards to TPS, we are a nation of men (or man) and not laws. Given how the Court has decided other cases, I expect that it will allow TPS to end for both countries, and any other country where the President chooses to end TPS. I hope I am wrong on that point, but that is my best guess. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I have a pending asylum case and recently filed a mandamus lawsuit after waiting about 3.5 years without an interview. When I filed my asylum application I was in valid F-1 status, but because of the long delay I eventually lost that status and now my only situation in the U.S. is a pending asylum application.
About 43 days after serving of the lawsuit, the government filed a motion requesting an extension of time to respond.
In your experience, is this type of extension request a normal procedural step in mandamus cases, or does it sometimes signal that the government may be preparing a motion to dismiss? Would you consider this a neutral, positive, or negative sign at this stage?
Also, during the past couple of months, the situation in my home country (Iran )has escalated significantly due to the ongoing war and I have participated in anti-government demonstrations in the U.S. My photos and videos from protests have circulated on opposition social media pages, and Iranian authorities (IRGC )have publicly threatened protesters abroad. Because of this, my situation has become more political compared to when I first filed asylum.
Could developments like these ever be relevant in a mandamus case to help show harm from prolonged delay? If so, do you think it would be useful at this stage to submit an additional declaration to the court describing these developments?
Thank you for your thoughts.
I do not know whether the request for more time is a sign of anything. In some jurisdictions, 3.5 years should be enough time for a mandamus to succeed, but in other jurisdictions, it may not be. If you are in a “slow” jurisdiction, maybe the government will file an opposition to the mandamus. It may also relate to the hold on asylum cases, though that is a hold on decisions and not on interviews. In terms of the new developments in Iran and in your life, I think these are very relevant to your asylum case and you should document as much as you can. I do not think they are particularly relevant to the mandamus case, however, as that case is about the process/delay and not really about the substance of the asylum case itself. Take care, Jason
Could you please share here once you get an interview or any update. My friend has same timeline and is not sure to do mandamus at 3.5 year mark.
Thank you
Great read. Thank you!
Since this excellent piece is about the career of a judge, I have some questions about law and law schools. Non-lawyers hear the phrase of “thinking like a lawyer” all the time but without necessarily knowing what it means. I’ve done some research and learned that thinking like a lawyer is operating in the Socratic method, case method, where there is no right answer, where there is uncertainty, where there is a need for arguments and counter-arguments, evidence and counter-evidence. In other words, “thinking like a lawyer” is being able to generate arguments and evidence vs. counter-arguments and counter-evidence within the uncertainty that there is no right answer.
How would you explain the notion of “thinking like a lawyer”? And how would you describe the Socratic method and case method? How do you think law schools prepare the wannabe lawyer in “thinking like a lawyer,” the Socratic method, the case method?
It seems to me that some people are narrow-minded, so much so that once they are convinced with one position, they fail to see other positions and the arguments and evidences that follow them. Those people then would struggle to “think like a lawyer” because they are supposed to operate in both sides within the uncertainty, to know the lay of the argumentative land, to put themselves at the other person’s shoe, to understand the position of the interlocutor well. Is my characterization accurate?
And do you think judges also operate on this “thinking like a lawyer” business? In other words, what (if any) are the differences or similarities between the lawyerly ways of thinking between J. Burman and the Asylumist?
I am not sure what that phrase really means, aside from thinking critically. One purpose of law school is to help lawyers write clear and persuasive arguments. This includes evaluating evidence and precedent, looking at the situation from different perspectives, and anticipating an opponent’s arguments. There is no magic to it, but a decent legal education does help with the practice of law. Take care, Jason
Excellent read. Thank you for sharing!
Interesting interview with J. Burman. When he said—“I think there is not much fraud. There is some puffery. Not all cases can show a well-founded fear under the law, but they are mostly people afraid of being killed”—what does he mean by the distinction between fraud and puffery? Also what does he mean by the difference between “well-founded fear under the law” vs. “people afraid of being killed”? And why “the really fraudulent cases tend to get granted unless they are investigated”?
I can’t speak for J. Burman, but my impression is that puffery means that they are exaggerating what happened, and not outright making things up. Regarding “well-founded fear under the law” vs. “people afraid of being killed,” I think he is referring to the “nexus.” Meaning, you can qualify for asylum if someone seeks to harm you based on your religion or political opinion, but usually you cannot qualify if someone seeks to harm you because they want to steal your money. In other words, you have to fit the feared harm into one of the protected categories for asylum. If not, your case will likely be denied even if you fear being killed in your home country. In terms of really fraudulent cases getting granted unless they are investigated, I think he is emphasizing the importance of investigative resources to uncover fraud. Take care, Jason
That you and other advocates should advocate for the expansion of INA to include more people who are harm, regardless of nexus, to be qualified for asylum. Rather than selected few ?
I think morally, if people have the same level of fear, they should be afforded same level of protection.
But unfortunately, so far, I only see immigration advocates implicitly adhere or endorse current INA to continue to maintain the restrictiveness of who i s qualified for asylum…
Since CAT doesn’t require nexus, I believe WOR and asylum shouldn’t require either.
I wrote about this issue on May 13, 2014. Take care, Jason