Immigration Court

# Asylum Office# Asylum Seekers# BIA# Immigration Court

The Time to Pay the Asylum Fee Is Now

Last year, the One Big Beautiful Bill created a filing fee for asylum and an annual fee that asylum seekers must pay each year their application is pending. Unfortunately, the roll out of the fee payment system was a mess. It was impossible to pay the fee unless you first received a notice from USCIS or EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review–the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts), but some people were able to pay without receiving a notice. Other people were not able to pay even with the notice. Many people never received a notice at all. The fee was temporarily paused by a lawsuit, but then went back into effect. In short, the whole annual asylum fee (AAF) system is confusing. It’s also frightening, since failure to pay could result in your asylum case being denied.

For many asylum seekers, the window to pay the AAF closed before they could pay (or before they even knew they were required to pay). Recently, however, the window has reopened for some affirmative asylum seekers, and they have been able to pay the fee. Of course, this happened without an announcement from USCIS; we know about it only because some asylum seekers have reported that they are now able to pay the fee. We do not know how long the payment window will remain open, and so if you have not yet paid the AAF, the time to do that is now.

Read more

By Jason Dzubow
# Asylum Office# Asylum Seekers# Immigration Court

New Rule Aims to Send Affirmative Asylum Seekers to Court Without an Interview

Earlier this week, a new rule went into effect, which permits the Asylum Office to send certain affirmative asylum applicants to Immigration Court without an interview. The purported justification for the rule is “to reduce the backlog in the asylum system,” and–in the double-speak of USCIS–to “protect individuals who genuinely fear persecution and… help ensure that resources are directed to the timely adjudication of those claims instead of to those seeking to use the system as a loophole.”

I suppose denying cases without bothering to adjudicate them will save time. It will also reduce the backlog, at least the backlog at the Asylum Office. But shifting tens of thousands of cases to Immigration Court will increase the backlog there.

Here, we’ll take a look at what the rule says, how it might impact affirmative asylum seekers, and what you can do about it.

Read more

By Jason Dzubow
# Immigration Court

Surviving the New Mega-Master Calendar Hearings

The Trump Administration has been using all the tools in its vast toolkit to make life more difficult for immigrants. Their newest machination is the “mega” Master Calendar Hearing in Immigration Court, where up to 100 non-citizens (and their lawyers) are required to be present for a brief in-person hearing.

What is the purpose of these mega MCHs and why are they problematic? What should you do if you are waiting for your MCH in Immigration Court?

Read more

By Jason Dzubow
# Immigration Court

Incompetence and Laziness in Immigration Court

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.

Read more

By Jason Dzubow
# Asylum Seekers# Immigration Court

Rumors of Asylum’s Death Have Been Greatly (Somewhat? Slightly?) Exaggerated

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.

Read more

By Jason Dzubow
# Asylum Office# Asylum Seekers# Credible Fear# Detention# Immigration Court

Affirmative Asylum Cases Dismissed and Sent to Court Without an Interview

One quiet trend that has recently come to light is a new practice at the Asylum Office to dismiss affirmative applications without processing them. The asylum seekers are then subject to “expedited removal” proceedings or otherwise served with a Notice to Appear in Immigration Court. Some are detained. A preliminary evaluation of these dismissals found that many were improper under the law.

Here, we’ll examine this new development, look at who is affected, and discuss how to prepare for the possibility that your case will be dismissed by the Asylum Office.

Read more

By Jason Dzubow
# Asylum Seekers# Immigration Court

More Asylum Seekers Are “No Shows” in Immigration Court

Recent data reveals that increasing numbers of asylum seekers are failing to appear for their Immigration Court hearings and effectively abandoning their applications to remain in the United States.

In FY2023, there were 13,319 abandoned cases in our nation’s Immigration Courts; in FY2024, there were 18,436 abandonments; and in FY2025, the first year of the Trump Administration, the number of abandoned cases soared to 51,446.

Read more

By Jason Dzubow
# Asylum Seekers# Immigration Court# Legal Relief

Asylum Cooperative Agreements and the Fiction of the Safe Third Country

A recent Board of Immigration Appeals case highlights the Trump Administration’s latest tactic for blocking asylum seekers from protection in the United States. In Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, the Board held that two Guatemalan migrants were barred from asylum, Withholding of Removal, and relief under the Torture Convention, and that they could be sent to a third country–in this case, Honduras–to pursue a protection claim there. 

The decision illustrates a new trend in Immigration Court where DHS (the prosecutor) files to pretermit (deny) asylum and order the non-citizen deported. The basis to pretermit is that the applicant could seek asylum in a safe third country pursuant to an Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA) with that country. The Immigration Judge may then deport the person to the third country, where they can supposedly seek protection. 

Here, we will discuss the ACAs and how they are affecting asylum seekers.

Read more

By Jason Dzubow
# Immigration Court# Legal Relief

Fight or Flight?

I recently met with the family of a man from El Salvador who we’ll call Jorge. Jorge was detained by ICE and is facing imminent deportation. He has been in the United States for more than 10 years, has no criminal convictions, and has several relatives with legal status, including his child (a U.S. citizen) and his mother (a permanent resident). Jorge had faced danger in El Salvador: criminals tried to force him to join their gang. They also murdered his uncle. Based on these facts, Jorge is legally eligible to apply for asylum, Withholding of Removal, relief under the UN Convention Against Torture, and Cancellation of Removal. The question for him and his family is whether fighting his case and trying to avoid deportation is a good idea.

Read more

By Jason Dzubow