Featured Issue: Asylum Under Trump 2.0
On the first day of his second term, President Trump suspended all entries at the U.S. Southern Border for asylum seekers. Since then, the Administration has implemented sweeping restrictions that shut America’s doors to people fleeing persecution. These policies violate federal law, erode constitutionally protected due process, exacerbate the asylum backlog, and give those seeking safety an increasingly narrow path to protection.
Left unchecked by Congress, these policies will have dire consequences for both asylum seekers and the integrity of our legal system. Asylum seekers—especially those without access to counsel—are at grave risk of being returned to harm.
It doesn’t have to be this way. The Administration can maintain order at U.S. borders and effectively manage migration without sacrificing fairness and adherence to the law. With more trained asylum officers, a streamlined legal process, legal representation for asylum seekers, and more effective coordination between relevant agencies, the U.S. can establish a safe, orderly, and humane asylum system.
Browse the Featured Issue: Asylum Under Trump 2.0 collection
Practice Alert: Asylum Cases Prior to Administration Transition
As the transition to the Trump Administration approaches, significant changes to asylum policy and procedures are anticipated. The AILA Asylum and Refugee Committee has created the practice alert to guide attorneys handling asylum cases.
AILA's ICE Liaison Committee Meets with ICE
AILA’s ICE Liaison Committee will meet with ICE on November 21, 2024, to discuss topics related to NTA guidance, the CARECEN settlement, admin closure, transfer of detained clients, confiscation and return of original documents, and more. Read the full agenda and key takeaways.
CA1 Upholds Denial of Asylum as to Salvadoran Petitioner Who Faced Death Threats from the 18-Gang
The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that petitioner, who had faced death threats from members of the 18-gang in El Salvador, lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution, and thus upheld the denial of asylum. (Cortez-Mejia v. Garland, 11/15/24)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Asylum as to Petitioner Who Suffered Domestic Abuse in Ecuador
The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that petitioner, who suffered domestic abuse in Ecuador, had failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution if she were to return to Ecuador. (Medina-Suguilanda v. Garland, 11/14/24)
CA1 Upholds Asylum Denial as to Petitioner Who Received Multiple Extortionate Death Threats in El Salvador
The court upheld the BIA’s and IJ’s denial of asylum as to petitioner, who had been assaulted by armed assailants in El Salvador and received death threats, finding that he did not meet his burden to demonstrate harm rising to the level of persecution. (Urias-Orellana v. Garland, 11/14/24)
CA9 Holds That BIA Erred in Finding No Nexus Between Salvadoran Petitioner’s Persecution and His Political Opinion
The court held that BIA erred by concluding the petitioner failed to establish a nexus between the persecution he suffered and his political opinion, by mischaracterizing his proposed social group, and by improperly ignoring evidence. (Aleman-Belloso v. Garland, 11/13/24, amended 2/18/25)
CA3 Finds Substantial Evidence Supported Denial of Asylum as to Guatemalan Petitioner Who Was Abused by Violent Ex-Partner
The court rejected the petitioner’s particular social groups (PSGs) consisting of “Guatemalan small business owners, victims of extortion by gang members” and “Guatemalan women viewed as property and unable to escape their violent ex-partners.” (Manuel-Soto v. Att’y Gen., 11/12/24)
Think Immigration: What’s Changed in Immigration Law over the Last Two Years? What Hasn’t!
In this blog post, AILA member Elizabeth Montano details some of the many changes to immigration law and policy over the last two years as she explains why she turns to Kurzban’s Immigration Law Sourcebook for the comprehensive resource she needs to serve her clients.
Time: What Donald Trump’s Win Means For Immigration
Time provides a summary of President-elect Donald Trump's proposed agenda as it relates to American immigration policy.
Removal Defense Section
The AILA Removal Defense Section is a community of AILA members interested in furthering the practice of removal defense and dedicated to providing effective advocacy on behalf of their clients. It provides a forum for practitioners to ask questions, share information, and discuss strategy.
CA1 Finds BIA and IJ Erred in Finding That Petitioner Failed to Demonstrate a Sufficient Likelihood of Torture in Jamaica
The court concluded that the agency’s likelihood-of-future-torture finding, which formed the basis of its determination that the petitioner was ineligible for Convention Against Torture (CAT) deferral, rested on an erroneously narrow legal definition of torture. (Morgan v. Garland, 11/5/24)
Think Immigration: Getting Back to Basics - How to Improve the Entire Immigration System
AILA Law Journal Editor-in-Chief Cyrus Mehta previews the fall edition writing, “Our immigration laws will not get better unless we continue to advocate and share our expertise about how our existing system’s weaknesses harm America.”
CA2 Holds That IJ Improperly Applied Framework for Protecting an Incompetent Concitizen’s Rights and Privileges
The court found that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s finding that the IJ herself had implemented adequate safeguards to address the petitioner’s incompetency and protect his rights and privileges, and thus granted the petition for review and remanded. (Reid v. Garland, 11/5/24)
Call for Examples: Ambiguous RFEs for Asylee and Refugee I-485 Applicants
AILA's USCIS High Impact Adjudications Assistance Committee (HIAA) seeks examples of cases where an RFE for an asylee and refugee Adjustment of Status (I-485) applications using the February 2023 form edition was issued after June 3, 2024.
CA9 Upholds District Court’s Conclusion That Government’s Metering Policy Is Unlawful
The court largely affirmed a district court decision holding that the government’s systematic turnbacks—or “metering”—of people seeking asylum at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border was unlawful. (Al Otro Lado, et al. v. Mayorkas, et al., 10/23/24)
Resources on Litigation Related to Challenging CBP's Unlawful Practice of “Metering” Asylum Seekers
Find resources related to Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas, a class action lawsuit challenging the government’s practice of turning back asylum seekers at ports of entry (POEs) along the U.S.-Mexico border.
CA9 Remands Asylum Claim Where M-18 Gang Made Specific and Menacing Death Threat Against 14-Year-Old Petitioner
The court held that the petitioners, a mother and her son, established that they suffered harm rising to the level of persecution, finding that members of the M-18 gang who murdered the son’s father were willing and capable of murdering the petitioners. (Corpeno-Romero v. Garland, 10/22/24)
CA1 Finds IJ’s Adverse Credibility Determination as to Former Bodyguard in Guatemala Was Supported by Substantial Evidence
The court upheld the denial of asylum as to the Guatemalan petitioner, who formerly worked as a bodyguard for a congressman and feared returning to Guatemala because he believed that he would be the target of extortions and threats by gang members. (Garcia Oliva v. Garland, 10/21/24)
Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for FY2025
Memorandum for the Secretary of State with the presidential determination of the admission of up to 125,000 refugees during FY2025. (89 FR 82767, 10/18/24)
CA1 Upholds Asylum Denial to Ecuadorian Business Owner Subjected to Extortion Attempts and Death Threats
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that petitioner, the owner of a taxi company in Ecuador who had been targeted in extortion attempts by gang members and received death threats, failed to show past or future persecution. (Vargas-Salazar v. Garland, 10/17/24)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Special Rule Cancellation under NACARA to Salvadoran Petitioner
The court upheld the denial of petitioner’s special rule cancellation of removal application under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), finding he had not shown exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to himself or his spouse. (Figueroa v. Garland, 10/17/24)
USCIS Clarifies Guidance on Expedite Requests
USCIS clarified how it will consider expedite requests related to government interests and requests related to emergencies or urgent humanitarian situations, including travel-related requests. This guidance is effective immediately and is controlling and supersedes any related prior guidance.
Immigration-Related Agency Updates Related to Hurricane Milton
We know that Hurricane Milton is on many of your minds. Here is a round-up of current agency information related to how they might handle the aftermath.
CA9 Finds Mexican Government Was Unable or Unwilling to Control Petitioner’s Attackers in Home Invasion
The court held that the record evidence showed that petitioner experienced harm committed by forces that Mexican authorities were either unable or unwilling to control, and that BIA erred by failing to consider highly probative evidence of nexus. (Meza Diaz v. Bondi, 10/8/24, amended 2/25/25)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Asylum as to Salvadoran Petitioner Threatened by MS-13 Gang
The court held that petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “Salvadoran men who resist gang recruitment” was not valid, and found that the IJ did not err in concluding that he had not made a sufficient nexus showing as to his other two PSGs. (Alvarado-Reyes v. Garland, 10/7/24)