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
CA10 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Colombian Petitioners Who Alleged Persecution Based on Political Opinion
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial of asylum, finding that there was no past persecution, nexus to political opinion, or government unwillingness to protect, and concluding that safe relocation was possible within Colombia. (Jimenez, et al. v. Bondi, 10/7/25)
CA3 Remands Where BIA Misapplied Particularly Serious Crime Test and Failed to Address CAT and Waiver Claims
The court found that BIA misapplied the particularly serious crime framework for petitioner’s asylum and withholding claims, failed to properly assess his Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim, and failed to inform him of eligibility for an INA §212(h) waiver. (Amos v. Att’y Gen., 10/1/25)
CA9 Remands Mexican Petitioner's CAT Claim Where BIA Failed to Consider Expert Testimony and Country Conditions
The court held that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to extensive expert testimony and country-conditions evidence regarding the risk of torture to the Mexican petitioner, and thus remanded petitioner’s Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim. (Uc Encarnacion v. Bondi, 9/30/25)
CA10 Remands Where BIA Incorrectly Treated Petitioner’s Asylum Appeal as Waived
The court denied the petition for review as to cancellation of removal, but found that the BIA abused its discretion by treating the petitioner’s asylum appeal as waived, and thus remanded for the BIA to address the merits of the petitioner’s asylum appeal. (Rangel-Fuentes v. Bondi, 9/29/25)
BIA Holds That Perceived PSG Membership Requires Cognizable Underlying Group
The BIA held that perceived or imputed membership in a proposed particular social group (PSG) will only satisfy PSG requirements if the underlying group of which respondent is perceived to be a member is, standing alone, sufficiently cognizable. Matter of L–A–L–T–, 29 I&N Dec. 269 (BIA 2025)
Policy Brief: Militarizing Immigration Courtrooms
On August 28, DOJ finalized a new rule that lowers the eligibility standards for temporary immigration judges, increasing concerns about their ability to rule fairly and efficiently while undermining due process. This policy brief explores these new changes and potential impacts.
Policy Brief: USCIS’s Unlawful Asylum Dismissals Increase Government Inefficiency and Harm Asylum Seekers
The Trump Administration is unlawfully fast-tracking deportations for certain asylum seekers, using expedited removal (ER) against people DHS previously admitted on valid visas or paroled into the U.S., despite the ER statute not applying to them, which was confirmed in a recent court ruling.
CA1 Dismisses Asylum Claim and Upholds Denial of Withholding and CAT Protection as to Guatemalan Petitioner
The court dismissed petitioner’s asylum claim for lack of jurisdiction under INA §208(a)(2)(D) and upheld the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief as to petitioner, who was threatened by hooded men in Guatemala. (Zapet-Alvarado v. Bondi, 9/22/25)
BIA Reverses Grant of CAT Deferral as to Applicant Who Cooperated with U.S. Law Enforcement Against Drug Cartel
The BIA found the applicant, who cooperated with law enforcement against CJNG, did not show a clear probability of torture, where his fear was based on unsubstantiated statements from a coconspirator and generalized evidence of cartel violence. Matter of J–C–A–G–, 29 I&N Dec. 331 (BIA 2025)
DHS Notice on New Collection of Social Media Identifier(s) on Immigration Forms
DHS notice and request for comments on a new generic clearance for the collection of social media identifier(s) on immigration forms, in accordance with EO 14161. This will apply to forms N- I-131, I-192, I-485, I-589, I-590, I-730, I-751, and I-829. Comments are due 10/16/25. (90 FR 44693, 9/16/25)
BIA Vacates CAT Deferral Where Record Showed Only Generalized Prison Conditions and Gang Violence in Haiti
The BIA held that the IJ erred in granting the respondent deferral of removal under the CAT where the record contained anecdotal reports of bribery in Haitian prisons and generalized violence by gangs against travelers or outsiders. Matter of W–F–, 29 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2025)
BIA Holds That IJs May Pretermit Asylum and Related Applications That Do Not Establish Prima Facie Eligibility
The BIA held that if factual allegations in a claim for asylum, withholding, or CAT protection, viewed in the light most favorable to respondent, do not prove prima facie eligibility for relief or protection, an IJ may pretermit the applications. Matter of H—A—A—V—, 29 I&N Dec. 233 (BIA 2025)
Practice Alert on Matter of A-B- and Matter of L-E-A-
On September 2, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi reinstated two precedent decisions from the first Trump Administration: 1) Matter of A-B- (both "I" from 2018 and "II" from 2021) and 2) Matter of L-E-A-. These decisions restrict asylum eligibility based on domestic violence and family membership.
AILA Recommends a NO vote on H.R. 3486 Stop Illegal Entry Act of 2025
AILA urges a NO vote on H.R. 3486, the Stop Illegal Entry Act, scheduled for a vote in the House on 9/11/25. This bill imposes disproportionately harsh punishments on illegal entry and reentry. Instead of this extreme, costly and ineffective approach, Congress should enact bipartisan solutions.
CA8 Upholds Denial of Motion to Reopen Based on Derivative Citizenship, Competency, and Asylum Claims
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s motion to reopen, rejecting his derivative citizenship claim, deeming his competency challenge waived, barring his asylum claim under INA §241(b)(3)(B), and finding his T-visa claim moot. (Myers v. Bondi, 9/8/25)
The Verdict Is In: Asylum Practitioners Can Count on AILA's Asylum Primer to Help Them Win Cases
According to Lindsay M. Harris, Director of the Frank C. Newman International Human Rights Clinic at the USF School of Law, AILA's Asylum Primer "is chock full of practice pointers and tips to support asylum lawyering. No asylum attorney should be without it!" Order your copy today.
CA4 Remands Guyanese Petitioner’s CAT Claim After Finding BIA Ignored Relevant Evidence
The court vacated the denial of petitioner’s Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim, holding that the BIA abused its discretion by ignoring unrebutted evidence that those who share certain traits of petitioner’s faced an increased likelihood of torture in Guyana. (McDougall v. Bondi, 9/5/25)
Attorney General Overrules Matter of A–B– III and Reinstates Matter A–B– I and Matter A–B– II
The Attorney General overruled Matter of A–B– III and, by extension, Matter of A–R–C–G– and any decision issued in reliance on it, and reinstituted the legal standards articulated in Matter A–B– I and Matter A–B– II. Matter of S–S–F–M–, 29 I&N Dec. 207 (A.G. 2025)
DHS Notice of U.S.-Uganda Agreement for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests
DHS published the agreement between the U.S. and Ugandan governments for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests, signed on 7/29/25. (90 FR 42597, 9/3/25)
Attorney General Refers Matter of S–S–F–M– to Herself for Review
The Attorney General directed the BIA to refer the case to herself for review of its decision, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings in accordance with her opinion. Matter of S–S–F–M–, 29 I&N Dec. 206 (A.G. 2025)
Attorney General Refers Matter of R–E–R–M– & J–D–R–M– to Herself for Review
The Attorney General directed the BIA to refer the case to herself for review of its decision, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings. Matter of R–E–R–M– & J–D–R–M–, 29 I&N Dec. 201 (A.G. 2025)
Attorney General Overrules Matter of L–E–A– III and Reinstates Matter of L–E–A– II
The Attorney General overruled Matter of L–E–A– III, and instructed IJs and the BIA to adhere to the holding of Matter of L–E–A– II in all pending and future claims. Matter of R–E–R–M– & J–D–R–M–, 29 I&N Dec. 202 (A.G. 2025)
CA4 Holds That Material-Support Bar Did Not Apply to Petitioner Forced to Cook for Leaders of Terrorist Organization
The court held that the BIA erred in applying the material-support bar to deny the petitioner’s asylum application, finding that petitioner’s cooking was not sufficiently substantial standing alone to help the “Unknown Gunmen” accomplish their terrorist activities. (Ozurumba v. Bondi, 9/2/25)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Cancellation and Withholding to Guatemalan Mother with Three U.S.-Citizen Children
The court upheld the BIA’s determination that petitioner failed to show that her U.S.-citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship upon her removal for purposes of cancellation, and also upheld the denial of withholding of removal. (Lopez Cano v. Bondi, 8/28/25)
CA10 Holds That BIA Misstated Nexus Standard for Mixed-Motive Asylum Claims
The court held that the BIA’s stated nexus standard for mixed-motive asylum claims was erroneous, because persecution can be “on account of” a protected ground under INA §101(a)(42)(A), even where unprotected grounds also motivated the persecutor. (O.C.V., et al. v. Bondi, 8/26/25)