Call for Examples: Changed Immigration Court Practices Affecting Asylum Seekers

AILA is seeking examples of changed court practices relating to defensive asylum applications after Matter of A-B- and Matter of W-Y-C- and H-O-B-, as well as shifts in bond practices, that affect asylum seekers' rights in court. Specifically, please send information to AILA if any of the following apply:

  • You've had an asylum case pretermitted for not stating a prima facie asylum claim;
  • You've received an asylum denial using stock language (without an individualized assessment of the facts in your case;)
  • You've been required by an immigration judge to file a brief and your evidence in the case within a short time frame although the case has been set for an individual hearing a long time in the future; (for example, a judge requiring a brief and evidence in 60 days even though the individual hearing is set three years in the future;)
  • A judge denied bond or set an inordinately high bond without consideration of individual circumstances.

If you have experienced any of the above, please complete the brief survey below. If you have two different examples of the same practice (for instance, two pretermissions), please submit multiple surveys. If you have questions or experience technical issues, please send an email to, subject line "Court Practices Affecting Asylum Seekers." Please note that your case examples may be shared with the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS).

We also invite attorneys to report outcomes in their post-A-B- cases at all levels of adjudication and any notable developments along the way, such as challenges by DHS or IJ briefing orders, to CGRS. AILA and CGRS are tracking different information, so it is helpful to both organizations if you can provide information to each of us. You can request CGRS’s assistance in your asylum case online.

Powered by Formstack

Cite as AILA Doc. No. 18121036.