In a recent announcement, the White House stated that asylum grant rates have “collapsed” in Immigration Court. “Under President Trump,” the announcement continues, “asylum is now granted in just 7% of cases — a historic low, plummeting from over 50% rubber-stamped under Biden.” Is this the end of asylum as we know it? In the immortal words of that great Twentieth Century philosopher Monty Python: “I’m not quite dead.”
It is true that asylum grant rates have fallen significantly since President Trump took office, but the numbers don’t tell the whole story, and here we’ll look at what’s happening in Immigration Court and how the overall negative trend might apply to an individual asylum case.
Let’s start with some numbers. In March 2026 (the last month where data is available), Immigration Judges completed 81,932 cases. Of those, 57,875 people were ordered removed from the United States. Another 9,075 took “Voluntary Departure” and agreed to leave the country on their own. The remainder were allowed to stay in the U.S., either because their application for relief–such as asylum, adjustment of status or Cancellation of Removal–was approved (2,275 people) or because they had some other path to remain in the country, such as termination, dismissal or administrative closure (12,708 people). Put into percentages, for cases decided in Immigration Court in March 2026, 81.7% of non-citizens were ordered to leave the United States and 18.3% were permitted to stay.
Looking more specifically at asylum, the overall picture is not pretty. In March 2026, Immigration Judges granted 700 asylum cases, granted Withholding of Removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture in another 55 cases, and denied 12,844 asylum applications. In percentage terms, IJs granted only 5.1% of asylum applications, or 5.6% if we also include Withholding of Removal and CAT.
The situation is not much better for other recent months. In January 2026, IJs granted 6.4% of asylum cases. If we include Withholding of Removal and CAT, the grant rate rises to 11.8%. In February 2026, IJs granted a paltry 4.9% of asylum cases and 6.8% of cases if we add grants of Withholding of Removal and CAT.
All this is pretty dismal, but let’s look behind the numbers to see if we can find any silver linings.
As far as I can tell, the biggest factors driving denial rates higher are two changes that affect asylum seekers who arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border. The first was originally implemented by the Biden Administration in an ill-conceived and entirely ineffective effort to deter migrants from seeking to enter the country at our Southern border. This is the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (CLP) rule, which applies to people who arrived at the border between May 11, 2023 and May 11, 2025. Such people were required to make an appointment to seek asylum using the CBP-One app on their phone. Many people did not make an appointment because they did not know about the rule or understand what was required, they could not make the app work or they were unable to wait until an appointment was available. Unless they can demonstrate a rare exception to the CLP Rule, such people are automatically denied asylum, though they can still qualify for lesser (and harder to get) forms of protection, such as Withholding of Removal and CAT.
A second major change that applies to people arriving at the border was implemented by the Trump Administration, but made retroactive to November 19, 2019. These are the Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs) that allow the government to deny asylum and order applicants deported to a “safe” third country. While most of these countries are not, in fact, safe, and many will not actually accept our rejected asylum seekers, the ACAs have allowed IJs to deny asylum (and Withholding and CAT) and order people deported.
Between the CLP rule and the ACAs, many asylum seekers in court are having their applications denied without a hearing on the merits. While this is bad news for anyone subject to these cruel provisions, it does offer some hope to people who came to the U.S. with a visa. While we do not have data separating out CLP and ACA denials from other denials, anecdotally, it seems like a high percentage of cases in court are being denied based on these rules. And so if you are not subject to these provisions, your chance of winning in court is probably a lot higher than the raw data suggests.
I should also say that for those subject to the CLP or an ACA, all is not lost. There are individual examples of asylum seekers overcoming those bars to asylum. Also, advocates have been working overtime to block these provisions nationwide, and there has been some success. Just last month, a federal court vacated the CLP rule, and while that fight is ongoing, it is certainly a positive development. Advocates are also challenging the ACA rules, and hopefully we will see progress there as well.
Aside from the CLP rule and the ACAs, a third development affects all asylum seekers, not just people who arrived at the border. The Trump Administration has been issuing new regulations and case law at a break-neck pace. All these changes are designed to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to win their cases, and are contributing to the lower approval rates we are seeing in Immigration Court.
Finally, I should mention two last changes that are pushing overall denial rates up. First, the Trump Administration has fired scores of Immigration Judges who were deemed too liberal. They are being replaced with judges who are more aligned with the Administration’s agenda. This is designed to intimidate the IJs who remain. Also, in many cases, the new judges seem more interested in denying asylum claims than in adjudicating them fairly. Second, the Biden Administration allowed many migrants to enter through the Southern border, even though their asylum cases were extremely weak. Now, those applicants are attending their individual hearings and–for the most part–being denied, which contributes to the elevated denial numbers.
The situation in Immigration Court is probably worse today than at any time in the past. The Trump Administration wants asylum seekers to lose hope. But even now, winning is not impossible. While the overall approval rate is quite low, keep in mind that the data may not say much about your own, individual case. People who entered the country with a visa face fewer obstacles than people who entered at the Southern border without a visa. People who identify and address weak points in their cases can increase the odds of a grant. For those who keep fighting, it is still possible to achieve a positive outcome, even in these difficult times.
I was referred to court in 2020 and my individual hearing was meant to be same year, covid happened and i never had a date on the case anymore. Eoir states there are no future hearing date for this case and its pending.
Got married to usc in 2022, filed i130 in 2023 and got approved in nov 2025. Now my lawyer filed a motion to terminate RP so i can file i485 with uscis. Based on data and statistics, how long does this motion typically takes for cases without any hearing date? Please share any information that would be helpful. Thanks
I think it varies by court and by judge. If there is no response in a couple months, the lawyer can call the court clerk to ask about the status of the motion – sometimes that helps. Take care, Jason
After 10 years of waiting, going from USCIS to EOIR, and 6 times rescheduling of individual hearing, finally was waiting for Aug 2026 hearing and was preparing for it. All of a sudden checked the online status of my case today, and it says The immigration judge ordered REMOVAL.
And I have till July to send appeal to BIA.
That’s how ridiculous the system is.
I am very sorry to hear that. The system is a disgrace and we hear stories like this every day. I had a former client who received notice in early May that he had a Master Calendar Hearing scheduled for June 5. He went to court on June 5, only to find out that sometime between early May and early June, the hearing date was moved forward and he had been ordered deported. No notice, and no idea about when the date was changed (and of course, the court clerk was utterly useless). In his case (and probably your case), he needs to file a motion to reopen to attempt to get the judge to reopen the case and schedule him for a hearing. The fee for the motion is more than $1000! So even if he can get the case back on track, he will have to pay that fee plus pay for a lawyer. In your case, I would recommend that you talk to a lawyer about the best approach, as it probably makes more sense to file a motion to reopen (and the cost of an appeal is about the same), and you want to make sure you file the appropriate response to what happened. Good luck, Jason
My attorney just got off the phone with the court clerk. They’re using CARR to mass reject all the cases. They have not even read my cases. They said they got directions from the attorney general that they should use CARR for rejecting all the cases on the docket.
My case is so strong that just a little but of review would have convinced the judge to forget about the CARR. So, they didn’t even open the case.
They are trying all sorts of dirty tricks to reject people’s cases. There are standards for Matter of CARR and they cannot simply dismiss a case, as long as it states a potential claim for asylum on the I-589 form. That’s not to say that they won’t claim lots of cases don’t state claims, and then people will need to appeal, but since the BIA is useless, they will have to then go to the federal court for help. This will all be very expensive and prevent many asylum seekers from ever having a chance to present their case. Your lawyer should reach out to AILA, as they are tracking a lot of this nonsense, and they may have resources to bring a lawsuit to try to stop some of it. Also, of course, it is a good idea to make sure your asylum application complies with Matter of CARR, and if not, you can submit a corrected application. Take care, Jason
You think if we appeal to BIA we don’t have a chance? What do you mean it’s useless?
And also, since my case if filed by paper, they say it takes more time in BIA, what’s the usual wait time you see at BIA right now?
That was a bit of an exaggeration, but the Trump Administration fired half the judges on the BIA and has been replacing them with more ideologically aligned people, and this will make winning at the BIA more difficult. Also, they introduced a new rule in March to automatically deny all appeals within two weeks unless a majority of judges decides to review the case more substantively. That rule was blocked by a federal court, but it could go into effect, and if it does, the vast majority of BIA cases would be very quickly denied (I wrote about this rule in more detail on February 17, 2026). For now, with that rule blocked, appeals times are very unpredictable. I have cases pending 4, 5, and 6 years or longer, but newer appeals seems mostly seem to be resolved in under 6 months (though not always). In short, appeals times are not predictable, though as best as I can tell, the BIA is focusing more on new cases rather then older cases. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, what is Matter of CARR – from what I found online and understood – decision says if I-589 doesn’t have a declaration, asylum application can’t be deemed abandoned as declarations are not a constituent part of an asylum application. So why are currently all cases being rejected? Also how to ensure application complies? I have pending affirmative case – can I resubmit i-589 to the USCIS or is it only for court cases?
Basically, the asylum application must state a claim, and so you have to describe why asylum is needed and that has to be a legitimate basis for the court to grant the case. You can’t respond to the questions on pages 5-8 by stating, “I will submit an affidavit in the future with more information.” You also can’t have your case denied for failure to submit an affidavit, as long as you explain why you need asylum on the form. I have not heard about cases being denied en masse based on Matter of CARR, and while judges are using it in sneaky ways (and maybe something is going on in a court where I do not practice), the reasoning of the case itself does not support mass dismissals. If you are worried about this, just be sure that your I-589 explains the reasons why you need asylum and any past harm you suffered or future harm you fear. You do not need to submit all the details, and can do that later, but you have to explain the basics. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, I’ve read today about deportation where people who were granted withholding of removal, were deported to CAR – https://apnews.com/article/central-african-republic-immigration-deportations-trump-iran-0ad513dc07d1ab39d906e2c8632b9e74, country that they don’t have any ties or relationship to. Do you know if it’s happening to every WOR or people who arrived after 2019?(when ACAs were signed). I’ve discussed with my lawyer previously possibility of WOR, but he didn’t mention that I could still be deported.
I have not seen any data and so I don’t have a sense for the scope of the problem. Are they deporting a few hundred people? Or many more? Certainly, these are happening, and what is particularly egregious is that they changed the rules after people agreed to WOR (and Torture Convention protection). It is possible to try to defend against the deportations by claiming you will be harmed in the third country. However, in most cases, it is difficult to explain why you would face persecution in a country where you have never been. For some people, such as LBGT people and maybe certain religious or ethnic minorities, it might be easier than for others. Also, since you do not know where they might deport you, it is difficult to get ready ahead of time. I do think if there is anything about you that would make it more dangerous for you to go to a third country, you should at least have that evidence ready. This might include evidence of sexual orientation or membership in a religious or ethnic minority, any criminal issues (since people with a criminal history might face additional problems in a third country), any medical issues (which might make the detention in a third country more dangerous). Also, not that immigration judges seem to care, but it is also good to have evidence of ties to the US, such as family connections, job, evidence of volunteer work or other good moral character. You never know if that might be helpful as well. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason. Thank you for everything you do.
My case was referred to Concord immigration court from SFO asylum office. I waited for almost 10 years for the interview. Decision came after exactly a year. I received the notice on May 12 for the master calendar hearing on a June 10. My attorney just called me today to let me know that he can’t make it tomorrow as something has come up and I should request for continuance.
I’ll definitely go to the hearing regardless but In the current situation, can a judge deny it? I heard that judges are conducting close to 100 MHs in a day. Can I represent myself without an attorney?
Thank you
It is not ideal, but since the courts are randomly moving cases around, these things happen. Since it is the first time in court, the judge should give you more time to get a lawyer. Also, sometimes, when the lawyer enters their appearance with the court, the court will cancel the Master Hearing and just require the lawyer to submit in writing what they would normally say orally at the hearing (that happened to me yesterday for a judge in Sacramento, for example). You can try calling the court to ask about that – you can find the court’s phone number if you follow the link under Resources called Immigration Court. Take care, Jason
** Domestic air travel on pending asylum – reasonably safe (or not)? **
Hello all. I was hoping that the community could share its experience regarding domestic travel domestically by air under the current administration while having a pending I-589 application. I was thinking of travelling to see family ate summer/fall (after the World Cup) by air, between two cities (in Blue states) that aren’t within 100 miles of the border.
I had a valid nonimmigrant status, and filed my currently pending I-589 (10+ years pending) during the grace period. I currently have a valid (c)(8) EAD that still has a few years left on it. I have paid my AAF. No criminal record/arrests (except for a municipal ticket). I’ve flown without any problems in the past. But w/ this administration, I’m hearing conflicting things online about the presence of ICE at airports (and I’d much rather avoid an interaction with them).
I’m trying to weigh the risks before deciding to go or postpone until later (maybe until the November midterms or even till Jan 2029). I know no one can give me a definitive answer; I’m just trying to gauge other people’s experiences to get a feel of things So any anecdotes about first/secondhand experience flying domestically would help.
Thank you.
For people who entered lawfully and who have a pending asylum case and no criminal issues or removal orders, I have not heard about anyone being detained or running into trouble on a domestic flight. While I think it is not impossible to have problems, since there is a lot of random things happening, I think it is unlikely for someone in your position. If you do travel, it is good to have proof of the pending asylum case available (maybe on your phone or computer), such as the receipt, biometric notice, and work permit. Plus your passport showing that you entered lawfully with a visa. Take care, Jason
Hi Jazon,
I want your opinion on a friend’s case. This friend applied for FGM asylum, she’s from a West African country. In support of the application she submitted a US County Clinic report signed by a WHNP BC that confirmed she is a FGM victim. The AO referred her case to court because ‘fundamental change in circumstances’. When we FOIA’d her A-file, we discovered that AO’s fundamental change reasoning was based on the fact that she has been cut and face no future danger of being cut! AO also mischaracterize her persecution for refusing her daughter to be cut as not persecution to the applicant and that the daughter being a USC can stay back, removing the risk. Meanwhile, the decision letter from USCIS reads that she meets definition of refugee and a further review of the assesment notes, we see that the AO actually found that past persecution, nexus and government unwillingness to control plus rare enforcement of FGM laws were established. The AO in his analysis did not take cognizance of the psychological report which was submitted and diagnosed the applicant with F33.1 MDD with anxiety disorder even though he noted in the interview note that trauma document was submitted, in the assesment, he claims no evidence of psychological report submitted. AO also claimed because the US County Clinic document only confirmed FGM and not the sequelae, the harm is not severe enough!
We have since updated the record to include a report from her PCP confirming the sequelae and we are looking at engaging a country condition expert.
My question is, how viable are claims like this under this dispensation?
Thanks for your help 🙏🏾
By reading what you wrote I think the case failed to demonstrate persecution due to non-compliance with FGM tradition, just because she is a victim of FGM demonstrate past harm but its not enough to demonstrate future persecution. However, if she had face or will face persecution for standing or advocating against the FGM tradition in her country she has a protected ground ( political opinion). If she had or will face persecution for refusing to do it to her daughter she had a protected ground (social group). If she can demonstrate she will face severe harm when she return to her country without her daughter and also demonstrate that the persecutor will punish/harm her for for fleeing with her daughter to protect her from FGM, she has a protected ground.
It sounds like a pretty awful decision by the AO. Generally, the harm of FGM is considered ongoing, and victims of FGM can often qualify for humanitarian asylum. In addition, if she faces any other serious harm in her country (such as harm when people try to circumcise her daughter, or maybe even the circumcision of the daughter itself, or any other harm she could face back home, such as forced marriage or honor killing), she could qualify for asylum on that basis – I wrote about this here: https://asylumist.com/2012/03/26/fgm-other-serious-harm-asylum/. She should talk to a lawyer about how best to present the case and how to show the ongoing harm of the FGM (it sounds like she is doing this, but it is worthwhile to double check with a lawyer). An expert report might also help. There are different kinds of expert reports, and so what type of expert she needs might depend on what evidence is needed to make the case stronger. It could be country condition evidence, or evidence of the harm she faced, or something else. It sounds like this case is a strong case, even these days, and she should certainly make her best effort to present the strongest case that she can. Take care, Jason
Thank you so much Jazon. The evidence did include her child facing direct (not speculative) threats of FGM back when they were in West Africa. The AO just for no reason seem to take no cognizance of the fact and claimed the child can stay in US because she is a USC. USCIS did concede past persecution in the decision letter and other elements like nexus, PSG and government unwillingness were established in the assessment. We will work with a Lawyer as suggested. Regards
If the decision is very recent, you might want to talk to the lawyer about a motion to reconsider with the asylum office. That usually does not work, but in a situation like this, it might be possible, and it is probably worth a conversation. Take care, Jason
I heard some immigrants self harm in their home country, and then frame it being harmed by others to apply for asylum.
For example, I heard many abortions in a particular country are actually voluntary…But these women they claim they are forced to get an abortion…I am concerned they will be unfairly granted asylum…should I have such worry ? Can I trust immigration officers can catch their lies ?
My thinking is that…in the operating room, it will just be the woman and doctors…how could people verify if it’s really voluntary or if it’s forced ?????
Hi Jason,
What do you think will be the impact of this ruling? Is it possible that all asylum related cases will start moving forward? The article mentions people especially those from banned countries and I wonder if it will reopen things for everyone else.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/05/us/politics/asylum-immigration-ruling.html
Thanks.
I presume this is the ruling stating that USCIS cannot continue to “pause” processing for people from banned countries? If so, it is a positive development, but we can expect that USCIS will appeal, and so how it will actually affect cases, we will have to wait and see. I think it is just too early to know at this point. Take care, Jason
A friend who’s misrepresented their reason to go to the US, because their life was endanger and they mentioned the situation how they get their visa on their asylum request but they granted asylum. Now, they submitted I-485 and a waiver of misrepresentation form including affidavit of the reason why they misrepresented. From your excprianse, Is that a problem during adjustment of status interview? They plan to take a lawyer with them during interview, do you think that is necessary?
The waiver required for misrepresentation when you file for a Green Card based on asylum is under a section of the law called INA 209(c). It is a powerful waiver and generally easy to get. However, these days, you never know. It may be worth at least talking with a lawyer about the specifics to make sure the situation is not worse than the person currently believes. If the misrepresentation occurred at the embassy to get a visa, and they were in danger for their life, the waiver should work (it used to be that a waiver under those circumstances was usually not even be needed, but I am guessing it will be needed today). I do think it is a wise idea to talk to a lawyer about the specifics, however, as these days, you have to be extra careful. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, what do you think about senate passing $70bn ICE funding bill, I thought they already had $170bn from the last year’s bill – does it mean more raids, more detention centers, more ACA countries? Some times I think going back to my country to be prosecuted, or killed is better than waking up every day to these horrible inhumane news.
It is pretty disgraceful and an incredible waste of money. We will see if it also passes in the House (I expect that it will). If so, ICE will be fully funded for the next 3 years or so, until the end of Trump’s term. How the money will be used, we shall see, but advocates and many good people will continue to oppose the Administration’s lies and inhumanity. Take care, Jason
So I submitted my I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, based on the EB-2 NIW self-petition, on May 1, 2026. Today, they just scheduled me for a biometric appointment. What is the significance of this? I already did a biometric appointment when I filed for asylum. Are these just automatically generated actions? Or does it mean that my Green Card application is about to be reviewed after I do my biometric appointment?
USCIS had phased out additional biometrics appointments, since they could just re-check the existing biometrics (since the whole point of biometrics is that they never change). However, for no good reason that I can see, USCIS started making people attend biometrics appointments for all applications, and so probably that is what is happening for you. In other words, this is normal (it is also a big waste of time). Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
How likely it is that this becomes a policy soon?
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/us-developing-a-plan-to-quickly-reject-some-asylum-claims-without-interviews-documents-show/
Do you think it’s possible they automatically refer all asylum cases filed after 1 year of arrival to court?
I wouldn’t be surprised if they do this, despite the fact that some exceptions to the one-year bar are very clear. For example, if a person is in lawful non-immigrant status, or they were under 18 years old, they would easily qualify for an exception to the one year bar. The main problem is that the government could care less about enforcing the law fairly. They only want to increase the number of deportations. Anyway, as with everything they do, we will have to see how it is implemented and whether it is challenged in court. Take care, Jason
Question about your writing style. It seems that you are cranking blogs at break-neck peace, too. I wonder how you go about writing those blogs, how do you research them, and how do you edit them. Do you have an editor who look over them? Or is what you publish here is your own drafts? I am just wondering because the writing is solid, and the ideas are insightful. Those are the kinds of articles that should appear in The New York Times, because the public would actually benefit from such nuanced discussions. And, do you use AI (ChatGPT) in your writing, as either a research assistant or a copy-editor?
Thank you for the kind words – I will let the NY Times know! I am writing once a week, or sometimes every other week, and so it is not very burdensome, and I am writing about the things I see or read about every day in the job. I don’t use AI for any purpose, and while I presume that this will soon make me obsolete, I do not expect that I will ever use it. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason thank you so much for your every counseling in this hard time.My asylum case is (decision )pending in asylum office for many years. I try to pay my annual asylum fees on online but it says this case doesn’t have any dues at this time. Is there any way or link so I could pay it without waiting for the notice?
The only link I know about for the payment of an affirmative asylum cases (not in Immigration Court) is here: https://my.uscis.gov/accounts/annual-asylum-fee/start/overview. If it does not allow you to pay, maybe take a screen shot of that, so you have a record of your effort to pay, just in case that is ever needed. Take care, Jason
Hi, Jason
I have question related to Asylum annual fee.
My case is pending for master hearing in court. Which option should I pick while making payment in EOIR web site where is says filing type. Thanks
It’s confusing between
Initial asylum fee or annual asylum fee kindly help
I am also curious.
For the newly referred case to EOIR.
Is it considered initial asylum fee or annual asylum fee ?
I don’t think it really matters, but for my clients, if it is the first payment and we are making it at the time of filing the I-589 form, we select initial annual fee. If it is a second payment or if the I-589 was already filed, we select annual asylum fee. Take care, Jason
They are telling uscis that everything I said in my asylum application is a big phat lie…these are the people I made allegations against.
Should I be worried ? And what should I do ?
I would talk to a lawyer about this and ask how to respond. At a minimum, you should documents what is happening, but you might also want to see whether criminal charges against this person might be appropriate. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I hope you are doing well. my USCIS status has changed to ‘scheduled for an interview’ for my asylum-based green card. My question is, what kind of questions do they ask in this interview?
Thank you.
They will normally review the I-485 form and ask questions from that form. Also, if there are any issues in your past (criminal issues, immigration problems, any prior misrepresentations on visa or other immigration documents, material support of terrorism issues), they often ask about those too. It is a good idea to review your I-485 and your old asylum case, so you remember the information in those. If you do not know an answer or do not remember, it is best to say that and not to guess. You want to avoid making inconsistent statements from what you previously told the US government. Take care, Jason
Thank you so much. I really appreciate your help.
Hi Asylee M when did you filed your application for greencard? I’m waiting for my interview since Nov 2024 and need to know which year they are calling for an interview.
Thank you.
We are seeing GC applications by asylees taking 1 to 2 years for most people, but I think it is not very predictable. Take care, Jason
Hello everyone! Friend of mine had withholding of removal granted by the immigration judge in 2023. He got detained by ICE almost 3 months ago just for being on the wrong place at the wrong time. His background is clean and he’s been nothing but a good citizen. He filled writ of habeas corpus, and he is waiting on decision. There’s been some progress in his case; judge issued a 14 day order for response to respondents, which was due yesterday. We didn’t get anything from them yet.
Today ICE agents took him to some office in detention center where he’s being held, notified him that he has some interview scheduled in 2 weeks and that he will be deported within a month to a third country. I’m getting generic responses from his lawyer, so I thought to seek advice here. My biggest concern and question is can he be deported with granted withholding while they are making a decision on habeas case. Thank you!
He could be deported to a third country, and to avoid that, he may need to express a fear of going to that country. This is called a credible fear interview or CFI, and maybe that is the interview they will give him. It can obviously be quite difficult to demonstrate a fear of persecution in a country where you never were, and so it can be difficult to defend yourself in this situation. Of course, it depends on the case and – for example – gay people can often show that they will be persecuted in different countries. The same might be true for certain religious or ethnic minorities, but it depends on the facts of the case. It is really disgraceful that they are doing this to him (and many others), but it can be difficult to deport a person to a third country and if he continues to fight against that and not cooperate with their efforts to deport him, he may have a chance. Also, I am not sure of his exact situation, but in general, the government cannot hold people forever – if they cannot deport him within 6 months, they generally have to release him. His habeas lawyer would now more about that. Take care, Jason
Update: they do not have proper country for his removal. He is gay and ortodox. ICE sent a notice to the judge who is on his habeas case that they do not have where to deport him. I guess they can’t hold him in detention forever and hopefully he’ll be released soon.
The general rule (based on a case called Zadvydas v. Davis) is that if the government detains someone, and if they cannot deport him within 6 months, they must release him unless he is a national security threat or a danger to the community. Unfortunately, these days, the government is often not following the law, and so a habeas lawsuit may be needed to get him released, and it might be worth talking with a lawyer about that now, so you are ready when/if the time comes. Take care, Jason
He already has habeas in motion. He filled it mid April. It’s taking forever to process it. It’s just the wait game now. And they are taking their time… we were waiting 3 weeks just for judge to be assigned to his case. And now it goes back and forth between the judge and ICE representative. Such a waste of time and money…not to mention emotional distress and consequences of this ridiculous act.
They are trying to wear you down, and many locations, habeas cases take a few months. Unfortunately, when the government does not care about following the law or doing the right thing, it is difficult, expensive, and time consuming to force them to do that. Good luck, Jason
A 5% grant rate is alarming, but the bigger question is whether these denials reflect weaker cases, stricter rules, or a system increasingly designed to reject claims before they’re fully heard.
With that said, I’d like to get your opinion on naturalization these days. Specifically, I’m a green card holder and already eligible for citizenship, but due to recent developments, I’m somewhat hesitant. Have you handled any naturalization cases recently? What do processing times look like these days, and what aspects is USCIS focusing on during the naturalization process?
I think it is a combination of factors leading to the low grant rate, but it is also symbolic of the broader effort to harm immigrants. As for a citizenship case, unless you have criminal issues or other problems that you think might cause trouble for you, I think it is ok to file (if you do have such problems, talk to a lawyer before you file). We are seeing such cases take more than a year for most people. If you are from a “banned” country, USCIS can process the case and interview you, but it cannot issue a decision. Otherwise, cases are being processed and it is possible to get citizenship. Take care, Jason
I feel that, after reading what you wrote, if asylum advocates have to continuously operate under the current administration and with existing restrictive INA asylum statutes, any progress, if any, will be small and reversible.
If asylum advocates really want to secure sturdier and longer term protection for asylum seekers. Then changing the INA asylum statutes and prevent anti-asylum politicians from being elected is the best way to help. I feel this will offer a broader, more systematic protection for the asylum community so I feel that asylum advocates should look into legislative lobby more and help oppose anti-asylum politicians.
There are many efforts to lobby Congress and work to elect more pro-immigrant politicians. All that is ongoing, though it has not (yet) resulted in a change to the law. Take care, Jason