This post is by Ben Harville, an immigration attorney in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. His practice includes family-based immigration, employment-based immigration, asylum, humanitarian relief, citizenship, and removal/deportation defense. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, where he teaches Immigration Law.
Last year, Naomi Seibt became the first person to request asylum under the Trump Administration’s new refugee priorities, which prioritize applications made by white South Africans and right-wing Europeans. Ms. Seibt gained international prominence in 2019 as the “anti-Greta Thunberg”: a young, Northern European woman who was outspokenly skeptical of man-made climate change. In recent years, she has expanded her focus to include critiques of the German government’s approach to immigration, gender, and other culture-war issues (a typical recent post: “Muslims in Germany will outbreed white Christians. If you don’t think that is horrifying, you are not worthy of the free West that our ancestors fought for”). She is also an outspoken supporter of the right-wing Alternative for Germany party (AFD). Because of these political beliefs, she claims, the German government will persecute her if she returns to her homeland.
Ms. Seibt’s request for protection no doubt checks a lot of the current Administration’s boxes. In addition to his new refugee priorities, President Trump has frequently expressed his desire to increase immigration from Norway and other northern European countries. Furthermore, Vice President Vance has called out Germany specifically, for suppressing the free speech rights of the AFD and their supporters.
Yet Ms. Seibt’s application also arrives in the midst of a systematic crackdown on asylum seekers in the United States. In 2025 alone, the current Administration “paused” all asylum applications to conduct additional vetting, limited the ability of asylum seekers to work legally, detained asylum seekers in increasing numbers, and used third country deportations to avoid the asylum process altogether. In addition, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has issued a slew of decisions that have made protection more difficult to receive.
Naomi Seibt’s asylum request presents an interesting opportunity to examine the practical effects of this bureaucratic blitzkrieg. Ms. Seibt can be confident that her application will be reviewed with friendly eyes. However, she must still demonstrate that she meets the ever-narrowing legal requirements for asylum. Indeed, Ms. Seibt has insisted that her asylum request will not require the Administration to bend its own rules, stating that “I applied for asylum with no intention to ask for a favor to prioritize my case. I am a legitimate asylum-seeker, my case speaks for itself.”
Fair enough – let’s take an objective look at Ms. Seibt’s case under the asylum laws as interpreted by the current Administration.
One way for an applicant to qualify for asylum is to demonstrate that she has suffered “persecution.” Ms. Seibt has reported no prior arrests, imprisonments, or incidents of torture; in fact, she has apparently never been physically harmed in any way. The only past harm she has alleged is that the German government has surveilled her activities and communications as part of their efforts to monitor right-wing extremism.
One need not agree with Ms. Seibt’s politics to share her discomfort with intensive government surveillance. However, the Trump Administration has raised the bar for establishing “persecution” under the asylum laws. In a November 2025 decision called Matter of N-P-A-, the BIA examined the case of a Moldovan applicant who was beaten by police officers while handing out political leaflets, arrested and held for two and a half hours, beaten again, and later summoned to appear for interrogation on suspicions of “extremist activity.” The Board determined that this mistreatment was not severe enough to constitute persecution and issued a deportation order. Needless to say, Ms. Seibt’s experience of government surveillance pales in comparison to the mistreatment suffered by the applicant in N-P-A-.
Notwithstanding the absence of past persecution, Ms. Seibt may qualify for asylum if her fear of future harm is well-founded. To that end, she has identified two additional harms that will befall her in Germany: (1) she will be murdered by Antifa members, and (2) she will be jailed or fined excessively for violating a controversial German law that prohibits defamation of political figures. Neither claim supports a grant of asylum, at least under the current Administration’s interpretation of the law.
Beginning in 2019, when she became a public figure, Ms. Seibt has reported receiving numerous menacing communications from Antifa members, including threats of sexual violence and murder. Once again, however, the BIA’s recent decisions are notably unsympathetic to asylum claims based on death threats, particularly in a case like Ms. Seibt’s, where the applicant received threats over a long period of time but never suffered any actual harm. In Matter of E-M-F-S–, decided in January 2026, the BIA held that “death threats alone rarely rise to the level of persecution,” and denied asylum to a pair of Peruvian journalists who received two written death threats on their home’s doorstep, one of which was accompanied by three bullets. Because the journalists had remained unharmed in Peru for six months following these threats, the BIA concluded that they had failed to show that their persecutors “possessed the ability to imminently follow through on the threat.” The N-P-A- case, cited above, similarly notes that, where an applicant “has endured a threat or assault but has nevertheless chosen to stay in his home country for a period of time, the choice to stay tends to weaken the claim of persecution.” These holdings augur poorly for Ms. Seibt, who never attempted to flee Germany, even though, as an EU member, she presumably could have hopped on a train to a safer country in Europe at any time.
Even if Ms. Seibt could demonstrate that Antifa’s threats are credible and imminent, she must go further: she must also show that Antifa is a group that the German government is “unable or unwilling to control.” She has asserted that she reported the threats to German law enforcement in 2019, but she was refused assistance because she hadn’t suffered any physical harm. Unfortunately for Ms. Seibt, the BIA recently held, in Matter of K-S-H-, that a single unavailing request for police assistance does not demonstrate government unwillingness. Thus, the Antifa claim is unlikely to prevail.
Finally, Ms. Seibt has expressed a fear of future prosecution under Paragraph 188 of the German criminal code. This provision prohibits defaming political figures in certain circumstances, and punishes such defamation with fines or imprisonment for up to five years. As an outspoken political provocateur, Ms. Seibt claims that the German government is likely to imprison her if she returns to her country.
This aspect of Ms. Seibt’s case appears strong on its face. Article 188 would likely be unconstitutional if enacted in the United States, and throwing journalists in jail for criticizing politicians sure sounds like political persecution; the stuff of Putin’s Russia. Yet close examination reveals some chinks in this claim’s armor.
To my knowledge, Ms. Seibt has not identified a single instance of a similarly-situated individual serving a meaningful prison term for violating Article 188. Instead, she cites the case of David Bendels, the editor of a right-wing media outlet who was convicted and sentenced to seven months’ probation for spreading a fake meme featuring a German politician. If this is the most egregious application of the law that Ms. Seibt can point to, the high bar for “persecution” has not been met. The constraints of probation, while certainly unpleasant, do not constitute “persecution” under even the broadest interpretation of that term. Furthermore, a German court recently overturned Mr. Bendels’s conviction on free speech grounds; a victory for free speech in Germany, but a torpedo blast to Ms. Seibt’s purported fear of imprisonment.
So does Ms. Seibt qualify for asylum? It’s difficult to predict the outcome of any asylum case. However, it’s undeniable that the current Administration’s efforts to narrow the scope of our nation’s asylum laws have considerably weakened Ms. Seibt’s claim. Also, given the current asylum “pause,” Ms. Seibt is stuck in a kind of immigration purgatory, watching helplessly as each successive month brings new BIA opinions that weaken her case and make deportation more likely. If Ms. Seibt’s sojourn to the United States indeed ends with a removal order, she may recall the admonishment she gave to the many would-be refugees seeking protection in Europe: “They have a duty in their own countries to fight for their own countries.”
Hello Jason,
If a person entered the country legally in 2016 on B1B2 and applied for asylum 10-11 months later, case has been pending since, is this person eligible to apply for EB-3 now?
I don’t think he is eligible since there have been a few months w/o any status.
Asking because there are a lot of videos circling around about that opportunity, but I think they are misleading.
I appreciate any response in this matter, thank you!
The person could apply for the EB-3, but unless they meet a rare exception to the rule, they would most likely have to leave the US to get the green card, and this may or may not be possible, depending on many factors. In practical terms, I do think this is unlikely to work, but if you think it is possible, you can talk to a lawyer to look at the specifics and see whether there may be a possibility of getting the green card. If there is, I would have the lawyer write down the plan, step-by-step, so you understand how this would work and what are the risks. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason, I have been offered a job offer but then the HR saw that my TPS and work authorization (of Yemen) ends in May 4, 2026, and I told them that I have a pending asylum and applied for EB 2 NIW, but the HR rescinded the offer, saying that they are afraid of any repercussions from the current administration; that because my work authorization ends soon on May 4; and that because it is not extended as of now; all of those reasons made them rescind the offer. I have been interviewing with them for several months but once we came to the final HR paperwork, they rescinded the offer, which made all of my interviewing with them amounted to a waste.
Do you think all HR would behave the same way—that is, they would rescind the offer once they realize that my work authorization is ending in a month in May 4? I didn’t lie to them and answered their questions faithfully and truthfully but that led them to rescind the offer. What other options and strategies do I have when I reach the HR paperwork? Can I tell them something different that would lead them not to rescind my offer? If my job offers would keep be rescinded, I don’t feel a strong motive to keep applying for jobs, because that amount to a waste of my time.
I have not heard about that happening to other people, but for now, if your only work permit expires in a month, I can understand why an employer may not want to hire you. Can you apply for the EAD based on asylum pending? It is not as good as it used to but it would be valid for 1.5 years and is renewable. Also, I guess we will know in the next month or so whether a court will block the Administration from ending TPS, and if so, that might make employers more willing to hire you. Even if TPS is extended, I still think the asylum-pending work permit is the better bet, as it will clearly show work eligibility for 1.5 years + you can provide evidence to show that it is renewable. Take care, Jason
Yes he said not only does it expire in a month but also I don’t have anything planned for once it expires; so he rescinded the offer. It is unfortunate but he said that he is afraid of cutting any slack given the fear atmosphere the current Administration created. In previous times, he might have taken a chance, but not anymore.
I have submitted my asylum case on January 16, 2026. When would I be eligible for the work authorization associated with that? And what form would I need to submit? Thanks for your inputs.
There is a new rule designed to restrict work permits, and unless it is blocked by a court, that rule will go into effect on April 24, 2026 and will potentially cause a major delay. I am not sure, but it may be that the rules will not apply, as you filed for asylum prior to its effective date; also, it could (hopefully) be blocked by a court. If so, and if you are under the old rule, you could file for a work permit after 150 days, so that would be about June 18, 2026. You would use form I-765, available at http://www.uscis.gov. When you get close to that date, you can check the status of the rule or talk to a lawyer about whether you can apply. Take care, Jason
@work authorization,
I am sorry to hear that. I am afraid this will happen more often.
@Jason, I am also very worried about employers’ reaction towards this issue. The purpose of having EAD is so that pending seekers can work.
Is this some actionable discrimination ? If employers can discriminate based on EAD status, then I am afraid that many people will suffer discrimination, a large class of people.
Hello Jason, hope you are doing well.
Some news outlets saying asylum decision pause has been lifted, except for those from 39 countries. Do you have any insight on that? How long do you think offices will start giving out decisions and is there any additional screenings or potentially second interview (if asylum interview already took place) are put at place during this pause, as this adminstration promised to do on the november memo?
I have not heard that, but if I have news about it, I will post it here. These days, news is not announced in the normal way. There may be a quiet memo that is not publicized, but is issued internally. If that happens, we should learn about it pretty quickly, as we will hear from asylum officers and maybe start receiving some decisions. Take care, Jason
There has not been an official announcement, but it sounds like USCIS is lifting the “hold” for people are not from a travel ban country. We’ll see whether decisions start being issued. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
If anyone can help me with this question, please. Is an Afghan passport with a sticker extension issued through the Afghan Embassy in Canada accepted for travel to Georgia?
My passport was extended in 2023 and is valid until 2028, and I also have a U.S. green card. I’ve heard mixed information and want to confirm if it’s accepted or if there could be any issues with airlines, transit, or entry. Thanks
Sorry, I do not know, but generally, if you can get a visa issued by the embassy, that should be sufficient for when you arrive in the country. Take care, Jason
Dear Jason,
I hope you are doing well.
I am currently considering moving to a new residence, but I want to make sure that doing so will not negatively impact my pending immigration applications. I am awaiting a decision on my asylum-based green card application, my wife is waiting for her asylum interview notice, and my kids are waiting for their I-730 application ” 5 in total”, and I was in same address for 11 years!!
I am concerned about how changing my address might affect my case negatively , plus the risk of missing important notices or mail from USCIS during the transition.
Could you also advise me on the best way to handle this situation? Specifically, I would appreciate your guidance on whether moving at this stage could create any risks or delays in my case, the proper steps to ensure that my address is updated correctly and immediately with USCIS, and any additional precautions I should take to make sure I do not miss critical correspondence.
You can change the address of each form online at the http://www.uscis.gov website. If you go to the Form AR-11 page, there is a link to change the address on line. This should work, but unfortunately, you can never really be sure, and I had a client recently who changed his address properly, but did not receive the interview notice for his I-485. Luckily, he learned about the interview from his online account, so at least he was able to attend, even though he never received the notice. The problem, is that there is not way to know when any new notices will arrive, and so if you wait for all the forms to be processed, it could be several more years. Filing the change of address for each form should work, and then monitor the receipt numbers to see if there are any updates. Also, you can get “informed delivery” from the U.S. post office, and so you will see what mail is coming to your house before it arrives. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason, thank you for your blog—it’s incredibly helpful.
I have a question about adjustment of status in my situation:
I entered the U.S. legally on a B1/B2 visa in December 2021, overstayed, and then filed for asylum in November 2022 (within the one-year deadline). My asylum case has been pending since then, and I currently have an EAD valid through 2029.
If I marry my partner, who recently obtained a green card through EB-2, would I be eligible to adjust status under F2A, or would my prior overstay still bar adjustment under INA 245(c)?
Specifically, does my pending asylum case place me in a “period of authorized stay” that could allow adjustment, or would I need to wait until my spouse naturalizes to proceed with AOS?
Given that my asylum case is pending and I have valid work authorization, would a reasonable strategy be to maintain the asylum case and wait for my spouse to become a U.S. citizen before applying?
Thank you very much for your insight.
You need to be in status to adjust status when you marry a person with a green card, and unfortunately, asylum pending does not count. One option may be to get Advance Parole and then try to consular process. However, you would want to talk to a lawyer before you try that, as it requires you to leave the country and there could be a risk. Also, if you are from a banned country, it may not work (though hopefully at least some of the bans will be lifted). Alternatively, if you marry and your partner becomes a US citizen, you can probably get your green card without leaving the US. Unfortunately, that sounds like it will be a long wait. If you marry, you may want to start the process by having your partner file the I-130, and then decide later about possible consular processing or waiting for your partner to become a citizen. I would talk this through with a lawyer to make a plan and see whether there might be other options. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I am Syrian and a Green card holder based on asylum. My asylum case was delayed for ~6 years and went through 3 interviews due to possible TRIG/material support review (this is my guess, as material support was thoroughly investigated during my 2nd and 3rd interview), then was eventually approved without a waiver. I am now applying for naturalization (N-400).
Can USCIS revisit or re-litigate the prior asylum/material support findings during the naturalization process, and could this impact my eligibility for citizenship or trigger a reopening of the original asylum approval? Is it recommended that I request my FOIA, and can I find USCIS TRIG-related comments in it?
Thank you so much
Unfortunately, that is a possibility and I think you should be cautious, as USCIS can use the N-400 interview to look again at any aspect of your case. I wrote about this generally on December 2, 2020 and maybe that would be of interest, but I think you should try to get your file through a FOIA. These days, FOIA responses are usually pretty redacted and so you may not get much substantive info. You can challenge the redactions and try to get more, but that can be time consuming (and potentially expensive if you use a lawyer). I do think it is worth doing the initial FOIA to see what you get, and then go from there. The fact that you have already been through these questions multiple times is a good sign, but things now are worse than before and it is best to be cautious and gather as much info as possible before you get started. Take care, Jason
Hey Jason,
I entered the country legally in 2017 on B1B2 and applied for asylum 6 months later, case referred to court in 2022 and waiting for my individual hearing in August 2026 I don’t have any crime and USCIS have my current address on file as well where I living last 3 years.
Now I have to travel for work domestically to Hawai so looking at all the circumstances is it safe to travel or there are chance to be detained by ICE at the airport I do have a real ID
Thanks in Advance
Unfortunately, it is not very clear yet what is happening with ICE at the airports. There are at least a few reports of people being detained, but I do not remember where that occurred, and I have not heard details about why that person is detained. The ICE deployment is new and only started this week, and so we just do not have much information yet about how they are behaving. I am guessing that the risk is low, especially for someone who entered the US legally, but I am not sure. I think if the travel is very important for you, you will have to decide, but I would suggest you make sure your case is ready to go, and that you have a lawyer available who can quickly request a bond from an Immigration judge if you are detained. In other words, while I think the risk is probably low, it is not zero, and if you decide to travel, you would do well to be prepared for the worst case situation, just in case. Take care, Jason