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
AILA Sends Recommendations for Executive Action and Regulations on Immigration
AILA sent a letter to the White House with recommendations for executive action and regulations on immigration to ensure that the positive policy changes made during the Biden Administration are codified or otherwise made permanent.
Think Immigration: First Circuit Decision on “Climate Refugees” Must Not Discourage Advocates’ Efforts to Help
In this blog post, IRAP senior attorney and AILA member José G. Miranda details how, despite a recent federal court setback, advocates can continue to work to expand policy and legal frameworks to protect climate-displaced individuals.
CA5 Remands Asylum Claim of Nurse Who Was Threatened by Cameroonian Military for Treating Separatist Fighters
The court found that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s determination that the petitioner, a nurse who asserted that the Cameroonian military threatened to kill him because he treated separatist fighters, had failed to prove past persecution. (Aben v. Garland, 8/20/24)
CA1 Holds That BIA May Not Give Substantial Weight to Police Report Without a Conviction or Corroborating Evidence
The court vacated the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s adjustment of status application and remanded, holding that, in denying discretionary relief, the BIA may not give substantial weight to a police report in the absence of a conviction or corroborating evidence. (Rosa v. Garland, 8/16/24)
CA9 Finds It Lacked Jurisdiction to Review BIA’s Denial of Petitioner’s Motions for Remand and Administrative Closure
The court denied the petition for rehearing en banc and issued an amended opinion dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, a petition for review of the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s motions for remand and administrative closure. (Tapia Coria v. Garland, 3/19/24, amended 8/16/24)
CA1 Finds No Indication BIA Ignored Evidence Concerning Petitioner’s Medically Fragile Child Submitted with Motion to Reopen
The court held that, although the BIA did not mention the medical challenges of petitioner’s third child in its decision, there was no indication in its denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen sua sponte that it was unaware of the evidence petitioner submitted. (Charles v. Garland, 8/15/24)
The Case Management Pilot Program
AILA, Women's Refugee Commission, Global Refuge, Lutheran Social Services of the National Capital Area, and International Rescue Committee published a joint backgrounder on the Case Management Pilot Program (CMPP).
Practice Alert: Changes to Northern Border Processing of Asylum Seekers
Starting August 14, 2024, DHS processing of asylum seekers crossing the northern border from Canada will change to narrow the window of attorney access and increase the use of expedited removal.
Practice Advisory: “Particularly Serious Crime” Bars on Asylum and Withholding of Removal
IDP and HIRC provide a practice advisory with legal standards and sample case law determinations on the "particularly serious crime” bars on asylum and withholding of removal.
CA1 Upholds Asylum Denial as to Salvadoran Petitioner Threatened by MS-13 Gang Members Conducting Drug Deals
The court found that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s determination that petitioner’s status as a “single, Salvadoran mother with no familial protection” was not a central reason for her persecution, and thus upheld the denial of asylum. (Lemus-Aguilar v. Garland, 8/12/24)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Asylum as to Ecuadorian Petitioners Targeted Due to Personal Land-Related Dispute
The court held that the petitioners had failed to establish a nexus between their membership in their proposed particular social group (PSG) consisting of the “Penafiel-Peralta Nuclear Family” and the persecution they suffered in Ecuador. (Penafiel-Peralta, et al. v. Garland, 8/12/24)
CA6 Says BIA Failed to Conduct Proper Circularity Analysis as to Petitioner’s PSG
The court held that, reviewing the record as a whole, the particular facts of the petitioner’s case showed that her proposed particular social group (PSG) consisting of “victims of domestic violence” was not circular. (Tista-Ruiz de Ajualip, et al. v. Garland, 8/9/24)
CA1 Finds Indonesian Petitioner Who Once Provided Material Support to Foreign Terrorist Organization Ineligible for Asylum
The court held that the BIA and IJ did not violate the Indonesian petitioner’s due process rights by finding that he was ineligible for asylum because he had once provided material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization called Jemaah Islamiya. (Jani v. Garland, 7/29/24)
CA4 Holds That Indian Petitioner’s Involuntary Commitment and Forced Electroconvulsive Therapy Did Not Amount to Persecution
The court held that the involuntary hospitalization of, and administration of electroconvulsive therapy to, the Indian petitioner, who had “a well-documented history of debilitating and dangerous mental illnesses,” did not constitute persecution for asylum purposes. (Joshi v. Garland, 8/8/24)
CA1 Upholds Adverse Credibility Finding as to Brazilian Petitioner Threatened by Drug-Dealing Neighbor
The court held that, in light of the inconsistencies between petitioner’s statements and her testimony, the IJ and BIA reasonably concluded that petitioner’s testimony was not credible found she had offered no adequate corroborating evidence. (De Oliveira Rodrigues v. Garland, 8/8/24)
CA1 Finds That Guatemalan Petitioner Failed to Prove He Was Persecuted “On Account Of” a Statutorily Protected Ground
The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that the Guatemalan petitioner did not prove persecution “on account of” a protected ground pursuant to INA §101(a)(42)(A), and thus upheld the BIA’s and IJ’s denial of asylum. (Gonzalez-Arevalo v. Garland, 8/7/24)
CA1 Says BIA Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Finding Petitioner’s Bank Fraud Conspiracy Offense Was a Particularly Serious Crime
The court concluded that the BIA did not err in determining that the IJ adequately specified that the petitioner’s conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud was a particularly serious crime that rendered him ineligible for withholding of removal. (Lafortune v. Garland, 8/5/24)
CA9 Says Petitioner’s Past Harm Rose to Level of Persecution Where It Included Physical Beating Connected to Credible Threat (Withdrawn)
The court held that petitioner, a member of the Mann Party who faced death threats and a beating from members of an opposing political party in India, had showed that his past harm, when cumulatively considered, rose to the level of persecution. (Kumar v. Garland, 8/2/24, withdrawn 1/17/25)
Practice Advisory: FAQs on CAM Program Processing
The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) obtained policy documents about the CAM Program through FOIA requests that answer key questions about how certain application types are adjudicated. Read this practice advisory for more information.
Think Immigration: Court Conundrum: Omaha Immigration Court Frequently Compromises Due Process Rights
In this blog post, Kelly Shanahan highlights an ACLU of Nebraska report detailing due process concerns in Omaha immigration hearings, and urging readers to tell Congress to remove EOIR from the Department of Justice and establish an Article 1 independent immigration court system.
Parties File Proposed Settlement Agreement in Lawsuit Challenging Asylum EAD Clock
The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement in a case challenging the policies and practices of USCIS and EOIR that prevent asylum seekers from obtaining Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) while their asylum claims are pending. (Garcia Perez v. USCIS, 7/29/24)
Practice Advisory: Seeking Release of Clients Detained in Virginia Under Rodriguez Guerra v. Perry Settlement
The NIP, Amica Center, and the ACLU of Virginia provide a practice advisory on a proposed agreement in Rodriguez Guerra v. Perry, a class action challenging ICE ERO Washington Field Office's failure to abide by ICE's policy to immediately review the custody of certain detained individuals.
CA5 Upholds Asylum Denial to Petitioner Who Alleged She Suffered State-Sponsored Persecution in Angola
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner, who alleged that she had been persecuted by the Angolan government due to her father’s anti-corruption activities, had not suffered state-sponsored persecution. (L.N. v. Garland, 7/25/24)
Think Immigration: I Wish People Knew Our Immigration Laws Haven’t Aged Well
As part of our “One Thing” series, Sandra Feist highlights specific examples of how our immigration laws do not serve the interests of American businesses or communities well and calls on Congress to move forward with immigration reform that would be reflective of today’s realities.
Think Immigration: The CBP One App Is Not Enough
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee Law Student Scholarship recipient Brenda Macías López describes why she believes the CBP One App is not enough to help ensure vulnerable immigrants can have a meaningful chance to claim asylum.