Lawrence “Larry” Burman served as an Immigration Judge from 1998 until his recent retirement at the end of 2025. The Asylumist caught up with Judge Burman to discuss his career, the changes he’s witnessed over the years, and his view of the Immigration Courts today.
Legal
News from the Asylum Office: Blocking Work Permits & Updating Statistics
In its ongoing effort to (supposedly) “protect the American people from invasion,” the Trump Administration has published new rules to further restrict Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for asylum seekers. If implemented, these changes will be quite harmful to people filing new asylum applications in the United States.
What’s more, there is addition bad news buried within the proposed EAD rules. USCIS has included new Asylum Office data, which shows a steep decline in asylum grant rates.
Board of Imitation Appeals
The BIA was meant to be the “Supreme Court of immigration,” reviewing decisions by Immigration Judges and USCIS, interpreting the law, and setting precedents. It never quite worked out that way, as the Board has always been overwhelmed, understaffed, and has consistently failed to issue sufficient guidance to the nation’s Immigration Courts. But for all its flaws, the Board offered a modicum of hope that incorrect decisions could be corrected on appeal.
Now, however, new rules will change the way the Board of Immigration Appeals does business. These rules are meant to make the BIA into a rubber stamp for IJ decisions and will almost entirely eliminate due process for non-citizens at the administrative appellate level.
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.
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.
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.
“Halting” Asylum and “Re-Examining” Previously-Approved Cases
After the terrible shooting incident last week where a CIA-trained Afghan national killed one member of the National Guard and critically injured another, President Trump declared that he would “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries” and “remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country.” He also vowed to “denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization.”
We do not yet have a full picture of how these words will be put into operation, but several government agencies have already announced new restrictions on asylum and on people from Afghanistan and other “banned” countries. Here, we’ll look at what has been said so far, and try to understand how the new policies will affect asylum seekers and asylees.
Let’s Meet the New Temporary Immigration Judges
Perhaps you’ve heard about the Trump Administration’s plan to appoint 600 Temporary Immigration Judges to help address the 3.5-million case backlog in Immigration Court. As far as we know, all the new judges will be U.S. military lawyers from the Judge Advocate General’s corps.
To facilitate these appointments, EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees our country’s Immigration Courts–has substantially relaxed the requirements to serve as an Immigration Judge (IJ), and now, IJs do not need any experience with the immigration law to become a judge. The new appointments come on the heels of mass terminations at EOIR, which saw about 120 of the nation’s 700 IJs terminated or “voluntarily” retired.
What to expect from the new judges? Will they be Trump’s willing executioners, denying cases as fast as they can docket them? Or will they be more fair, enforcing the law regardless of their political bosses’ preference? EOIR recently announced the first class of Temporary Immigration Judges (TIJs) and here, we’ll look at their backgrounds to see what this might portend for their judgeships.
Trump-Proofing Your Asylum Application (Part 1)
Since the advent of the Trump Administration, it has been getting more and more difficult to win asylum. Decision-makers in court and at the Asylum Office are more suspicious of fraud, have higher expectations for evidence, and are looking for sneaky ways to deny applications. They are also less forgiving of inconsistencies and innocent mistakes. Add to that an overall environment where non-citizens are under threat, and the asylum process has become much more fraught. How then can you best prepare an asylum application during these challenging times?
Here and in part 2, we’ll examine some common problems faced by asylum seekers and how they can be overcome.