I recently appeared in court before a newly-appointed Immigration Judge. Unlike some of the new hires, this IJ had prior government experience in the immigration arena. He also previously served as a state court judge. You might think that someone with these qualifications would be well-suited for a job in Immigration Court. But if you thought that: (a) you obviously didn’t read the title of this article, which is weird; and (b) you would be wrong. The judge was unprepared for the case, he did not know the law, and he ignored direct orders from a higher court.
To fully understand what happened in court that day, you’ll need a bit of background.
My firm inherited this case from another lawyer. Our client was an asylum seeker who had previously been in court with a different IJ. The prior judge found the client credible, but denied asylum because the client failed to abide by the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (CLP) rule. This rule required asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border to make an appointment using the CBP-One app. For people who failed to make an appointment, asylum is automatically denied, unless they qualify for an exception to the rule. In our case, the client had been kidnapped by criminals at the border, and he sought an exception based on “an imminent and extreme threat to life or safety” from that incident. The prior IJ found that the client failed to submit sufficient evidence about the kidnapping, and thus did not qualify for an exception to the CLP bar. The judge denied asylum, but granted Withholding of Removal, which is a much less stable form of protection compared with asylum. The client appealed.
The Board of Immigration Appeals noted that although the judge found our client credible, she concluded that the client’s evidence was insufficient to corroborate his claim that he faced an extreme threat at the border. The BIA found that the judge failed to explain her reasoning, and that the case should be sent back to court “for the sole purpose of the Immigration Judge making clearer factual findings applying the corroboration framework [to the CLP analysis], including providing the respondent an opportunity to respond to the [judge’s] concerns.”
The case was returned to Immigration Court, but since the original IJ had moved to a different court, we were assigned one of the recently-appointed Immigration Judges.
Even before the hearing began, there were signs of trouble. While we were waiting for the judge to enter the courtroom, the DHS attorney (the prosecutor) warned us that this IJ had no idea what he was doing. As soon as he took the bench, the judge proved DHS’s point.
The judge began the hearing by talking as if the case was brand new and not on remand from the BIA. He obviously hadn’t bothered to look at the file–not even a little bit–before coming to court. As a new judge, you should have the humility to know what you don’t know. To be cautious and make sure you do things properly. To be extra prepared. After all, this is an important job that profoundly impacts other people’s lives. Unfortunately, that was not the case with our judge. We had to tell him what the case was about. He hadn’t even seen a copy of the BIA’s remand order (we gave him our copy), and so he was unaware of what the appeals court had ordered him to do (not to worry; once he was made aware of what the BIA wanted him to do, he ignored it).
He also had not read our legal brief, where we explained how the CLP rule had been vacated by a federal court in California, and that the court’s order applied nationwide. With the CLP rule vacated, there should have been nothing blocking our client from receiving asylum (and nothing for the judge to do except grant asylum). Without responding to any of our arguments, he simply noted that a ruling in California did not apply to a case in Virginia. This, despite an abundance of case law supporting our position.
We then heard testimony from our client, who answered questions about events at the border and his efforts to gather evidence about those events.
Following testimony, the IJ rendered his decision. While the judge felt that our client’s kidnapping had been “reprehensible,” he noted that such harm is common and predictable at the border. He concluded that the kidnapping was not the type of extreme harm required to overcome the CLP rule. Since we failed to demonstrate an exception, the IJ applied the CLP rule and denied asylum, but granted Withholding of Removal.
What the IJ did not do was follow the BIA’s instructions to determine whether we submitted sufficient evidence in support of our CLP argument. He also failed to evaluate whether our client’s testimony was credible and he did not explain the reasoning behind his decision. Instead, he stated without any analysis that the kidnapping was not “extreme” enough to overcome the CLP bar.
This is not how a judge should behave. A judge should follow any instructions given by the appeals court. He should evaluate whether witnesses are credible. He should explain his reasoning. In short, a judge should judge stuff.
Our IJ’s failure to follow even basic protocol violated our client’s right to due process of law, and was a snub to the BIA. It’s also downright embarrassing.
Naturally, we filed an appeal. While the BIA ain’t what it used to be (the Trump Administration fired half the judges there), I still think we have a decent chance on appeal, if only because we can show that the judge completely ignored a direct order from the Board. Of course, that is a huge waste of time, money, and stress, and it all could have been avoided if the Immigration Judge had simply cared enough to do his job.
Good day Jason.
We applied for AOS based on the asylum 8 months.
The processing time back than was 16.5 months.
Today, processing time was updated to 31 months.
Since processing time is increasing faster than my wait time, I start to think that the only choice will be to file WOM.
What’s your recommended wait time before proceeding with WOM for AOS?
It depends on where you are located in the US, and it would be worth talking to a lawyer who does such cases in your area, as they might be able to give you a better idea, but I would think that you need to wait at least one year before the mandamus would be an option. In the mean time, you can ask your Congress person for help (you can find their contact info if you follow the links under Resources called House of Representatives or Senate). They can inquire for you, and even if it does not help, it creates a record of your efforts to get USCIS to process the case, and that might ultimately help with a mandamus. Take care, Jason
Thanks Jason and understood.
I had to do WOM to get an interview and another WOM to get a decision.
It seems that system is only works when you file WOM.
I’m located in Pennsylvania. Do you or someone in your office do WOMs?
Does WOM require attorney to travel or it can be all done remotely?
Our office can do such a case. I think you should give them a few more months. Also, USCIS is resisting mandamus cases for I-485 applications, and so these cases often end in a fight. It might be worth doing the Congressional inquiry, as that would be another piece of evidence in your favor for the mandamus (that you tried to get USCIS to process the case, but they did not). Take care, Jason
Jason, I am from Syria, one of the banned countries. In March 2025 I Applied for I-485 based on asylum granted in March 2024. Do you think it is worth filing a WOM if I am form a banned country? or does the pause (even if lifted temporary) trumps the WOM? I hope I am making sense.
Thanks for all you are doing!
You can file a mandamus, but USCIS is fighting mandamus cases for I-485 applications, so it may take some time. Also, if the pause returns, that will likely prevent USCIS from issuing a decision, though you could file an Administrative Procedures Act lawsuit to ask a court to declare the pause illegal (as the one court in Rhode Island recently did, except for your specific case). That can be costly, but it is possible. Certainly it may be worth talking to a lawyer about the options. You can also wait until after July 8, when the Rhode Island court will decide whether to allow USCIS to re-implement the pause. If the pause is not resumed, maybe that is a time to file the mandamus (though talk to a lawyer first, as your case has “only” been pending for 15 months and that may not be long enough for a mandamus in your part of the country). Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
You mentioned that the pause on applicants from banned countries is currently not in effect. I was wondering if you have seen any asylum decisions for applicants from those countries recently. Thank you
I have not seen any decisions. While the pause is currently not in effect, USCIS is still very slow and so for now, it is only the “normal” delay, as opposed to the extra delay caused by the pause. If the pause does not go back into effect, we may start to see decisions soon, particularly in cases where the person filed a mandamus lawsuit to force USCIS to do its job and issue decisions. Take care, Jason
Jason, thank you for all you do. Although my immigration journey is long over, I still occasionally follow your blog. This particular piece was intriguing because it reminded me of a time when I was denied asylum during the Obama administration. My lawyer at the time dismissed the BIA as a mere rubber stamp agency and expressed skepticism about our chances. However, miraculously, the BIA issued a two-page decision and sent my case back to the immigration court. I was also assigned a different IJ, who informed me that it was rare for the BIA to remand a case, which indicated that the original decision had significant flaws and granted asylum within 10 minutes. He had already reviewed the case file just because of the remand. He then asked the government lawyer if they agreed with the decision, and thankfully, the prosecutor simply acknowledged it and dismissed the appeal. Despite the challenges we faced during that time, I can’t even begin to imagine how difficult it must be now. I genuinely wish you and your clients the best of luck.
Thank you – I think there has long been issues with the BIA. As I recall, historically, they would remand about 10% or 15% of cases, but that was the overall number and included many people who had very weak appeals. The cases I worked on were usually stronger, and I would say we won about 50% of the time at the BIA. Now, about half the judges at the BIA were fired and the remaining judges (and newly hired judges) are much more hostile towards immigrants, and so I expect that the win rate will be a lot lower, but I have not yet seen any data. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I would like to hear your take on this recent Supreme Court ruling. https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-sides-with-government-in-dispute-over-rights-of-green-card-holders-accused-of-committing-a/
Does it mean that CBP officers can now deny entry to green card holders just on the basis of suspicion of a crime? I know it’s generally advisable for GC holders to not travel if they have a pending criminal case, but it seems that Justice Clarence Thomas thinks CBP officers can deny entry based on “suspicion” of a crime of moral turpitude and not a conviction. What about those that have dismissed cases? Is it even safe to travel outside at this point in time?
I planned a short travel outside the country but now I’m really reconsidering. I had an arrest and the case was fully dismissed without any admission. Although the charge could be classified as CIMT, I went to court and explained my situation. Case is sealed. I do have the certificate of disposition but I’m also from the 39 banned countries. I do expect secondary inspection but I’m afraid I’ll be treated very poorly or even detained indefinitely. That is very scary since I have a naturalized ion application but no sign of an interview any time soon. It’s very depressing.
The pause on people from “banned” countries is currently not in effect, and so you might see some movement soon. You could also consider a mandamus lawsuit to force USCIS to process your citizenship application. In terms of travel, the ban does not apply to people with a Green Card, and if there is no conviction, you should be ok. However, since the government is so untrustworthy and arbitrary, I understand why you would be concerned about traveling. If you do decide to travel, it might be good to have access to the disposition (final outcome) of the criminal case, so you can show that if asked. It would also not hurt to talk to a lawyer before you go, just to review your situation and make sure you are as safe as possible. Take care, Jason
I have not fully read the case, but it seems like it will make it easier to deny admission of GC holders who have criminal issues. That does not mean the people will be turned away at the airport. Rather, they would be paroled into the US, so they can have their claim decided by an Immigration Judge. “Parole” is where the person is physically allowed into the US, but legally, they are still considered requesting admission, and this gives them fewer legal rights. In practical terms, I am not sure it will make a lot of difference, but I think we will have to see how it is implemented. For GC people with criminal issues, I would definitely talk to a lawyer before traveling outside the US or applying for another immigration benefit, such as US citizenship. Take care, Jason
Dear Jason,
Today i checked today the I-485 process times for the refugee admission based on one year ago is now 30 months.
I checked last time two weeks ago it was 14 months. Do you think it is any mistake by the USCIS site or is it really happening? Thanks Jason.
I think processing times are all over the place and the info on uscis.gov is not always related to what we are seeing on the ground. I do not trust their numbers and I have more faith in the tracking tool from AIC, a non-profit organization that I wrote about here: https://asylumist.com/2026/05/13/new-tool-to-monitor-usciss-progress-or-lack-thereof/. Take care, Jason
i almost got depressed seeing that figures for processing times. I could not find processing times figures there at AIC web page.
I was happy that the pause has been lifted now our green cards are processed. Before it was 14 months max for refugees. I was thinking that I would expect approval in next months but now when i see the processing times it has gone crazy.
What time do you think a person it suitable for a person on refugees status to inquire E-request or congressional inquiry? Do you know any time frame?
Also what you think about USCIS appeal at the court for stay for the Dorcas case? Will USCIS be able to hold the pause again? Thanks Jason.
On the AIC web page, you can click the type of case on the left and then look for the backlog clearance time, which I think is similar to the processing time. So for example, for an I-485 based on asylum, the processing time was 11.9 months in September 2025, which is the most recent data they have. In terms of making an inquiry with Congress, I think you can do that at any time. Probably it is more effective if you have waited a year or more, but you can still ask them for help even before then. For USCIS, you have to wait until the system allows you to make an online inquiry, but if you have a reason to expedite, you can try that (I wrote about expediting with USCIS here https://asylumist.com/2020/01/29/expediting-your-case-with-uscis/). As for Dorcas, USCIS has appealed, I think, and they have asked to stay the court order and continue the pause on “banned” country cases. I think there is a court hearing about that on July 8 or 9. Take care, Jason
My RTD has been pending since April 2025 and just 13 days ago, I saw an update that said, ‘NAME WAS UPDATED.’ What does that mean? Any thoughts? I’ve had this status before as well before receiving my last travel documents so once I received my RTD four weeks after the name update status. The other time, my case was approved the next day after the name was updated. Now, it’s been 13 days and there’s been no news at all!
My RTD has been pending since April 2025 and just 13 days ago, I saw an update that said, ‘NAME WAS UPDATED.’ What does that mean? Any thoughts? I’ve had this status before as well before receiving my last travel documents so once I received my RTD four weeks after the name update status. The other time, my case was approved the next day after the name was updated. Now, it’s been 13 days and there’s been no news at all!
I tend not to think too much about the online updates, but it shows that there is activity in the case, and hopefully, it is a positive sign that you will get a decision soon. RTDs are (unfortunately) taking well over a year, and so the time frame seems normal for such a case. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Hope all is well with you, appreciate you for helping people and myself by answering queries.
Our final hearing is coming soon(Sep,2026) so little bit nervous but anyway we need to face it and accept it.
trying our best for positive reasult meantime i have some questions I hope i will get answers as usual.
1. Can we apply to postpone upcoming hearing for 2027?If we can what is the reasonable and suitable
time?
2. One of my son got married with non US citizen almost 7 months ago what will happen his status
either IC accept the postpone request or after final hearing decision in Sept?
3. If our case is denied we need to apply for BIA or till next process does the EAD which is valid till 2028
will work or after final decision we need to apply for new whish is another big problem now days.
Thanks
With regards
Jhampa
1 – You can try, and maybe if you have a good reason, that might be possible, but for the most part, the court will not allow a person to postpone the case and so you should get ready for the hearing, as it will probably go forward. 2 – If your son was a dependent on your (or his other parent’s) asylum case, he lost his dependent status once he married, and so he would need to file his own I-589 form as soon as possible, as he was supposed to file his own I-589 within a “reasonable time” of losing his dependent status and he has already waited 7 months, so that could cause problems with the one-year asylum filing deadline. Maybe the marriage would create another immigration path for him, and he might want to talk to a lawyer to explore his options. 3 – If the case is denied and you appeal, you can continue using the same EAD and you can renew that when the time comes, for as long as the appeal is pending. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I received an NVC notification that my case (filed by my parents) is ready for processing. I currently have a pending asylum case in the U.S. and need guidance.
Is it possible to attend the interview in the U.S or must it be conducted in the country listed by NVC(my home country)?
If not US, can it be a third country and what are the risks?
Has anyone done consular processing in a third country while having a pending asylum case?
I entered on b1/b2 visit visa
I never work without having EAD
I-130 category: Parents sponsor unmarried son/daughter F24
Priority date: 01FEB18
I-130 applied in March 2018
Arrived in the US: Nov 2016
Asylum filling date: Dec 2016
I am over 30 years old.
You should talk to a lawyer about the best way to proceed here. You are probably not eligible to get a GC without leaving the US, but it may be worth discussing with a lawyer just to be certain. It may be possible to get an interview in a third country, but that can be very difficult to arrange. Also, leaving the US involves a risk that you won’t get back, and it would be good to have Advance Parole as a back-up plan in case something goes wrong with the GC (I wrote about Advance Parole here: asylumist.com/2017/09/11/advance-parole-overseas-travel-for-asylum-seekers/). I would talk to a lawyer about all this, as it is complicated and the risks are significant if you leave, and you want to be as careful as possible. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I recently applied for advance parole and got appointment notification for fingerprints in 2 weeks. What are the chances of ICE detainment at the fingerprint appointment? No criminal history, just a brief overstay period after previous visa terminated and before affirmative asylum filing.
I also wanted to ask you what has changed in the last few weeks on asylum interview scheduling for the 39 countries in the pause post DORCAS vacateur ruling by RI court?
Thanks a lot
I think the chances of being detained under the circumstances are very low. The only detentions I have heard about at biometric appointments concern people with prior removal orders or criminal arrests. I have not heard about this happening, but other people who entered the US at the border without a visa may also be vulnerable to arrest, as the Trump Administration takes the position that anyone who entered without a visa is subject to mandatory detention. In terms of the banned countries, USCIS has supposedly started issuing some decisions for people from banned countries. Such people were never blocked from obtaining an interview; they were only blocked from a final decision. The litigation is still on going, and so we do not yet know how things will pan out, but for the moment, USCIS is supposedly issuing decisions (though I personally have not seen any such decisions yet). Take care, Jason
Hi Jason. We are Asylum based GC holder. My a Family member GC holder applied i130 for his wife present in Pakistan in August 2023 and he got receipt letter by uscis in September 2023. Still no reply by uscis. So how long he will wait more?
This seems like it is taking too long, even for a Green Card holder’s spouse (which is a bit slower than a spouse of a US citizen). The person might want to talk to a lawyer about a mandamus lawsuit to force USCIS to make a decision in the I-130. A lawyer who does such cases in your family member’s area should have any idea about when it is appropriate to file a mandamus. Aside from that, the person can make a case status inquiry at http://www.uscis.gov and/or contact his Congress person for help. He can find his Congress person’s contact info if he follows the link under Resources called House of Representatives or Senate. Take care, Jason
This is a such devastating environment we are in but I feel the asylum community, particularly the advocates should shoulder some blame.
If the asylum advocates could educate the public about asylum seekers, then maybe they won’t keep electing anti-asylum politicians into power and appointment such incompetency in EOIR…
Educating the public about asylum is probably more important than winning individual asylum cases in EOIR in my opinion. And I wish that by doing that, we can have voters who can elect a pro-asylum sanity president, appointing pro-asylum and competent IJs…what you describe in the article, comes from the executive branch, which comes from voters, which comes from failure on the advocates’ part to educate…
I feel this is of the most concern.
Kidnapping and persecution and some serious harm, what if the IJ just doesn’t personally think it’s enough.
They can just easily, by discretion, say well it’s not serious or extreme enough, so you don’t qualify for asylum.
What should we do in this case to restrain IJ’s dismissal of your clients’ harm and infliction ?
This is exactly the problem. The IJ said that kidnapping was not extreme enough. He provided no analysis or reasoning. In other words, he is not judging the case. He is making an arbitrary decision to deny, based on his desire to reach a conclusion without bothering to explain. Asides from appealing, I think there is not a lot to be done. We can make a complaint against the IJ to his supervisor, but that is basically useless. Some people are trying to make bar complaints against IJs with the state bar associations. That may be a good idea, as those associations are independent from the federal government and may actually care about ethics and due process, and it will be interesting to see how those cases get decided. Take care, Jason
I agree with the conclusion that not much we can do.
But I feel the solution, from a “what we can do” standpoint, from a long term, is that please educate people more so that they not elect anti asylum politicians…if Kamala Harris was elected president, I believe we wouldn’t have to deal with this in EOIR…