Recently, we’ve been seeing some unusual questions during asylum interviews. Applicants are being asked about their views of America and of Jewish people. They are asked about their finances and community involvement, whether they attend religious services, and their family ties to the United States.
Since this is the Trump Administration, you can probably guess that the new questions are not designed to make life easier for asylum seekers. Here, we’ll look at what’s changed and why, and discuss how to prepare for this aspect of your interview.
The questions that we have been seeing include the following:
- Do you or your family members hold anti-Semitic (i.e., anti-Jewish and possibly anti-Israel) opinions? Have you expressed those opinions on social media or elsewhere?
- Do you hold anti-American views?
- Do you own a home or property in the United States?
- Do you pay taxes?
- Do you belong to a church or other religious institution? How do you participate with your religious institution?
- Do you do volunteer work? Have you contributed to the community in any way?
- Do you have family members in the United States? Who? What is each person’s immigration status?
- Also, although I have not heard this myself, other lawyers have reported questions about whether asylum seekers or their family members have any chronic diseases.
Asylum Officers are not asking all these question to each applicant. People from the 39 “banned” countries are generally asked more questions than others, with a particular focus on questions related to anti-Semitism and anti-American views. The main reason for this (at least according to my sources) is to determine whether the asylum application should be denied as a matter of discretion.
Let me explain: If an applicant meets the legal qualifications for asylum, the Asylum Officer must then determine whether the applicant deserves asylum as a matter of discretion. To make that determination, the AO weighs the person’s positive and negative equities, and as long as the good outweighs the bad, asylum is granted. Traditionally, a person who meets the qualifications for asylum would be granted asylum as a matter of discretion except in the most egregious circumstances.
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is trying to change how the discretionary analysis works. They now consider citizenship from a “banned” country as a “significant negative factor” when deciding whether a person deserves asylum as a matter of discretion.
The new questions–especially when asked to people from “banned” countries–are designed to tip the balance towards the negative, so that more cases can be denied as a matter of discretion, even when the person demonstrates a well-founded fear of persecution in the home country.
I suppose the good news here is that people from non-banned countries will probably not be asked too many of the new questions. Such people are less likely to be denied asylum as a matter of discretion, and so there is less reason for officers to spend time on these questions. Even so, people from non-banned countries should prepare for the questions, just in case they are asked. The bad news is that people from banned countries will likely be asked the questions, and even a strong asylum case could potentially be denied as a matter of discretion.
If you want to prepare for the new questions, what can you do?
First, think about how you will answer the above questions if asked. While I hope you do not hold anti-Semitic or anti-American views, questions about these issues can be confusing. If you criticize Israel for the war in Gaza, does that make you anti-Semitic? Personally, I don’t think so, but it depends on your definition of anti-Semitism. If you criticize President Trump, does that make you anti-American? Again, it depends on how you define things. If you think about these questions in advance, and if you hold views or have expressed opinions that may be problematic, talk to a lawyer about how to frame your answers.
Second, be aware that the government may know more about you than you would expect. If you have posted anti-American views on social media, the Asylum Officer may know. If you have family in the U.S., or you failed to pay taxes, the AO may know. Trying to hide or lie about your past could result in bigger problems if you get caught in a lie. If you have a problematic history, don’t ignore it; talk to a lawyer for guidance.
Third, the whole point of these questions is to gather negative evidence to support a finding that you do not deserve asylum as a matter of discretion. To counter that, you can collect evidence that you are a good person. This is particularly important for people from “banned” countries, who already have one strike against them in terms of discretion. Get letters of support from people and institutions (church, mosque, school, employer) who know you. If you have won awards or earned degrees, you can collect those as well. You might also want to take some action to bolster your claim to good moral character: Do some volunteer work, get involved in the community, donate to charity. If you have prior arrests, you can voluntarily take a class (anger management, substance abuse recovery, etc.) to show you are working on your issues. If you owe taxes or traffic fines, make a plan to get those paid.
The Trump Administration is working overtime to block people from obtaining asylum in the United States. Despite all that, it is still possible to win a case at the Asylum Office. Gathering evidence and preparing yourself to answer these questions is the best way to counter the Administration’s latest effort to deny asylum to those who qualify for protection under the law.
Hi Jason!
I hope you are doing well. I am not sure if this has already been asked but I have my interview in 2 weeks after 8 years. I’m from one of the banned countries. When they said they are not making decisions on cases from banned countries, are they still referring people to the court? Or that has also been halted? Thanks for always responding and supporting this community.
Unfortunately, there is no official announcement from USCIS about this, but my understanding from asylum officers in Virginia is that they are not issuing any decisions for anyone from a banned country. However, I have also heard about a few “banned country” cases from LA being referred to court. I have not verified that, and so I am not sure, but I would not be surprised if that were true, as USCIS is often behaving inconsistently. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
I hope you’re all doing well. I wanted to share that my Form I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition application has now been pending for more than 8 months.
I had a few questions for those who are going through the same process or have recent updates:
* Is anyone receiving approvals these days?
* How long is it currently taking to get an approval?
* Are there any new rules or policy changes that might be causing delays in processing times?
I would really appreciate any recent experiences or insights. Thank you in advance!
As far as I know, none of the travel bans are affecting asylees who are outside the U.S. However, asylum decisions for people inside the U.S. are on hold for people from the 39 banned countries (see http://www.cfr.org/articles/guide-countries-trumps-travel-ban-list), and this may be affected I-730 cases as well. Even if it is not affected, we have been seeing most I-730 cases take 1 to 2 years. USCIS does not post processing times for I-730 forms, and so this is just based on my own experience. I think it is still too soon to take action, but if there is nothing in another 6 months, you may want to talk to a lawyer to see if a mandamus lawsuit might be an option. You can also contact your Congress person for help – sometimes, they actually do help. You can find their contact info if you follow the link under Resources called House of Representatives or Senate. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Thank you for the explanation. I know some of my friends’ I-730 cases were approved within about 7–10 months last year, so I was wondering if the longer 1–2 year timeframe you mentioned is something you’ve been seeing more recently, possibly after the Trump rule/travel ban changes took effect? Or was that already the normal trend before these recent changes?
Thanks again for your guidance.
I had been seeing cases take 1 to 2 years for some time. Once in while, I would see a faster cases, but as I remember, most cases fell within the 1-2 year time frame. The travel ban is a separate issue and while I have heard about some I-730 cases from banned countries being processed, we are also seeing big slowdowns and it is not entirely clear whether many such cases are being processed (again, for banned countries only). I believe there is some litigation about I-730 denials that is pending in the courts, and maybe that will help people with pending cases, but at least for now, the situation for I-730 beneficiaries from banned countries is not very clear (at least to me). Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, I already submitted my I-485 on my own, but I don’t fully trust how things are being handled under this administration. I’d like to hire an immigration lawyer to attend the interview with me here in Cleveland. In your opinion, what would be a reasonable attorney fee for that?
I am really not sure – maybe between $1500 and $3000? The attorney would need to review the case, prep you for the interview, and potentially spend the whole day with you at USCIS. I think $1500 would be on the low side for a decent lawyer to take over the case. Take care, Jason
I am writing to ask for your guidance regarding my work authorization in light of my upcoming TPS expiration. My Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is set to expire on May 4.
By way of background: I have a pending asylum application (Form I-589); I have also filed an adjustment of status application based on an EB-2 NIW petition, including Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status); my current work authorization is tied to TPS and will expire on May 4. Given that my TPS-based employment authorization will end on that date, I would like to ask:
(1) After May 4, while my asylum (Form I-589) and adjustment of status (Form I-485) applications remain pending, would I be authorized to continue working—for example, driving for Lyft—to support myself?
(2) If I were to continue working without valid employment authorization, what would be the potential legal consequences for: My pending adjustment of status (EB-2 NIW / Form I-485); and my pending asylum application (Form I-589)?
(3) From a practical standpoint, how would unauthorized employment be detected? For example, does Lyft report earnings in a way that is directly linked to my Social Security number or to immigration authorities?
(4) More broadly, could you please advise on the risks involved and the best course of action to remain in compliance while also supporting myself financially?
I would greatly appreciate your candid assessment of both the legal risks and the practical realities here, so that I can make an informed decision. Thank you very much for your service.
1 – Yes, as long as you have a valid work permit (based on the pending asylum case or the pending I-485, or if a court extends TPS). 2 – As far as I understand, working without authorization would potentially block you from a GC based on the EB-2. It would not block you from asylum, though it potentially could be considered a negative discretionary factor (though at least in the past, this would never have been enough to block someone from asylum). 3 – I do not know how they would detect your unauthorized employment, but on multiple forms, you need to list your jobs. If you fail to list a job, that would be another basis to deny your application, and so I think you would need to mention the employment. 4 – I think you need to try to get a work permit based on one of your applications. At least making the effort to get the work permit, even if it is denied, allows you to argue that you tried your best to comply with the law. This may help if USCIS tries to deny you a benefit based on discretion. But for the EB-2, I think unauthorized work might block you, or require you to submit a waiver, and you may want to check with a lawyer about that. Hopefully, TPS will be extended by a court, but the deadline is approaching quickly, and so far, I have not heard about any extension. Take care, Jason
I did decide to research this thoroughly, and I believe I can safely say that what USCIS is doing here isn’t just a shift in tone—it’s a departure from the law that governs how asylum claims must be handled. Congress was explicit in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): any noncitizen physically present in the United States has the right to apply for asylum, and that application must be adjudicated according to the standards Congress set—not new, informal hurdles created by the agency. The governing regulations require that affirmative asylum interviews be non-adversarial, yet the reported use of aggressive, accusatory, or legally irrelevant questioning undermines that mandate. When the agency effectively raises the bar beyond what the statute requires—whether by chilling testimony or implying extra-statutory disqualifications—it is acting not in accordance with law under the Administrative Procedure Act.
This is also a due process problem. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that people on U.S. soil receive a meaningful opportunity to present their claims, a principle recognized in cases like Mathews v. Eldridge and applied in the immigration context in Reno v. Flores. An asylum interview that pressures applicants, introduces vague or undisclosed standards, or discourages full disclosure is not a fair hearing—it is a procedural trap! The Supreme Court has also made clear in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca that asylum has a deliberately lower burden of proof than other forms of relief. USCIS cannot quietly rewrite that standard by conducting interviews in a way that effectively demands more than a “well-founded fear.”
Taken together, these practices reflect a systemic pattern that is appropriate for class-wide relief. Plaintiffs WOULD NOT be asking the Court to second-guess individual credibility determinations; they are asking the Court to enforce the law as written by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court. When an agency adopts practices that deter applicants from fully presenting their claims or impose requirements that do not exist in the statute, courts have both the authority and the obligation to intervene. The appropriate remedy here is injunctive and declaratory relief: to halt these unlawful interview practices, require compliance with existing regulations, and ensure that asylum adjudications return to the non-adversarial, legally grounded process the law demands.
I think this is right. The Trump Administration has been trying all sorts of sneaky things to block people from asylum in Immigration Court, and these questions represent part of their effort to block people from asylum at the Asylum Office. At this point, as I understand, advocates are still gathering information, since the Asylum Offices are not transparent, but I would expect some of these questions will be challenged in court, and for me, the most egregious is the idea that your home country would count as a significant negative discretionary factor. The whole point of asylum is to protect people fleeing from bad places, and so punishing asylum seekers for coming from bad places is simply a way to try to block legitimate refugees from getting the protection that they deserve under the law. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason
I have a pending asylum and no interview with USCIS for past 5 years and I was also a dependent on my husband’s asylum application. He was approved and I also got my I-730 approved.
Now do you see any benefit or point on continuing my pending application or can I withdraw my application?
Also, is it best to email or mail a withdrawal letter to the asylum office which has jurisdiction for my case?
I do not see any benefit to continuing your own asylum case now that you have asylum status. The only possible reason to do that would be if you think your marriage may end. However, even if that happens, you would be eligible to get asylum in your own right, though the process takes a few years (this is called a nunc pro tunc asylum application). If you wanted more info about how to withdraw your case, I wrote about that here: https://www.asylumist.com/2022/12/07/withdrawing-your-asylum-case. Take care, Jason
She is convicted. And I wonder how much chilling effect it would be for anybody wanting to help immigrants
I recollect that what she did was fairly brazen, but I do not remember the details of the case. Take care, Jason
I feel that it’s hard if you both want to be compliant and helpful of the asylum seekers.
The INA prescribes very limited and very restrictive ways to qualify for asylum. So ultimately, I feel that if asylum advocates want to help asylum seekers, they need to call their representatives to pass new pro-asylum laws…
I feel the nexus requirement is absurd and un reasonable, for example, which basically says some harm is more qualified than others for asylum. Even tho all people harmed should be granted asylum.
In addition, the evidentiary threshold is too high. 1 in 10 chance in harm is too restrictive. If I am landing on a plane, even if it’s just 1 in 50, I wouldn’t take the flight…Do you think the threshold should be lowered maybe to 1 in 100 ? I think asylum should be 10 times more expansive than what current law suggests.
If asylum advocates only work within the administrative or judicial system, not many people can benefit. I encourage asylum advocates to branch into legislative arm to help, pass new pro-asylum laws. In this way, many people can benefit.
There are many efforts being made in terms of legislation, but due to the political nature of the immigration issue, we have not seen any real changes to the immigration law for many decades. Perhaps at some point the Trump Administration will declare victory and move to legalize at least some people who are already here, such as the Dreamers. Dare to dream. Take care, Jason
LOL at the photo! It crossed my mind to get a USA tattoo before my interview, maybe not too far-fetched of an idea in this day & age..
I’m normally not a big fan of tattoos, but that’s not a bad idea…
Thank you for sharing these updates, Jason. I can’t believe this is not illegal. Have you heard about rumors that admin wants to require banks to ask for citizenship status, although we don’t have details yet, it’s worrying me – can it potentially become a law, and banks can close our accounts?
Unfortunately, the Executive Branch has a lot of authority over immigration, and I think it does have the authority to deny cases as a matter of discretion. There are limits to this, and I expect we will see federal court cases that help define when an otherwise approvable case can be denied based on discretion. I have also heard rumors about the bank thing. I do not know much about that, but it is part of the Administration’s efforts to attack immigrants on many fronts. Immigrants are suffering a lot from these efforts, but our country as a whole will also suffer the consequences of these self-inflicted wounds. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason and thank you for this insightful post. Do you have any update that the discretionary assessment is being evaluated by the same interviewing officer or someone else?
My understanding is that it is the same officer. However, it seems the supervisors are becoming more willing to scrutinize favorable decisions, and in fact, it seems like some or all approvals need to be approved by headquarters before they can be issued (though maybe this is only for banned countries; I am not sure). Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Hope all is well with you. Appreciate you for your answers
We ask you.
In our last conversation about my son who is in my asylum application when he was minor when I applied I 586. Now he is 26 years old and our individual hearing is in coming September, couple of months ago he got married with non US citizen when she was here.
Now i have 3 questions about his current situation.
1. Some people say he was minor when I applied 589
So he is still with hour application and he is eligible to attend the individual hearing with us. Is it true?
2. His spouse has applied for residency in her country
but we need to mention hos current statis in US so what should we need to write about the current starus.
Does it effect to his application (new application applied by his spouce)if he has this situation ?
3 What will be the best for him to do in this situations
Before Or after our individual hearing?
Look forward your response.
Best regards
Jhampa
1 – As soon as he married, he is automatically removed as a dependent of his parent’s case. If he is part of the Immigration Court case, he still needs to attend the hearing (otherwise, he will be ordered deported). He needs to submit his own application or asylum or an other relief as soon as possible. Keep in mind that all asylum seekers were required to file for asylum within one year of arriving or meet an exception to that rule. He met an exception to the rule while he was a dependent on your case, but once that ended (when he was married), he was required to file his own asylum application within a “reasonable period of time.” If he plans to file asylum for himself, he should do that as soon as possible, since it sounds like he married a few months ago. 2 – Your son’s status? He was a pending asylum seeker, but once he married, I do not know what status he had. Maybe just an expired visa? It sounds like the spouse is filing for your son to go to her country. If so, he might want to ask the judge for voluntary departure, so he can leave the US without a deportation order (assuming he is eligible). 3 – I think it is best to have a lawyer for a case like this, and he should talk to a lawyer about what he wants to do, and hopefully, the lawyer can help him achieve his goals. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason! I have a question that somewhat relates to this.
I have a dependent in asylum case who recently married a US Citizen. The main applicant, who is the dependent’s parent, filed for asylum 10 years ago when the applicant was still a minor. If the dependent get’s their marriage annuled, would that mean they could still stay as a dependent on the main applicant? Not a divorce but annulment?
Thank you
I am not sure about this. I think if the principal was granted asylum and filed an I-730 (follow to join) petition for the dependent, and then the dependent married and divorced/annulled, he could still benefit from the petition. But in this case, if the person was removed from the case (which happened automatically when he married), I do not know that he would once again be included in the application if the marriage ends. I would be careful about this because if the dependent was removed from the case, he may not have other options, or he could lose the ability to file for asylum himself due to the one-year bar. I would talk to a lawyer to look into this, just to be safe. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Thank you for posting this. I understand that this would be applicants that are not interviewed yet. What about those who already completed interviews and waiting for decision? Is there anything for them ?
I completed my interview Feb, 2023 but no decision yet. Also, I am from one of those banned countries, and wondering what will happen eventually.
We do not know about that. I suppose they could re-visit cases that were interview to ask about good moral character. If that happens, you could submit additional evidence. I have not heard that this is something they are doing, so hopefully, that will not happen. In terms of people from banned countries, they are still on hold. The hold was lifted for non-banned countries, and so that gives some hope for everyone else, but so far, we do not have any news about this. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Great piece as usual.
We kind of knew something like that was coming for people from the 39 countries. I even heard about of naturalized man from one of the 39 countries who had his petition to bring his poise on pause because of where he was born.
My question is, is criticizing Donald Trump or supporting his opponent or volunteering to help their campaign against him now consider a negative factor or anti-American views? I’m specifically asking on the context of naturalization. Since they are also holding people from the 39 countries to “significantly negative factor”.
My guess is that most USCIS workers do not like Trump and would probably agree with your views about him. Even so, it is a reasonable concern, given that the President often tries to harm those who do not like him. That said, I do not think this would be an issue, as they would not even know about such volunteer work – there is no requirement to report that, and I highly doubt you would be asked at an interview. Take care, Jason
Does owning a home or property in the United States good or bad for the asylum seeker?
That is a good question! I think it is viewed as a good thing, as it shows attachment to the community and that you are a responsible person. Take care, Jason
@asylum 2016
having home in the US or not is not gonna affect the asylum decision though! they do not care if you are doctor or engineer or business owner it all comes down to your asylum case and if it would get approved or denied. not that you have house or not so the house won’t help you in anything just to be clear with you
That is the change that they are implementing – they are trying to deny asylum to people who qualify by saying that the person does not deserve asylum as a matter of discretion. Owning a home and being a productive person who contributes to society would be considered positive factors and would help outweigh any negative factors, such as being from a country the Administration does not like. Before, this was never really an issue, but now it is, and I think all asylum seekers would do well to provide some evidence of good moral character with their case, and this is especially important for people from banned countries. Take care, Jason