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
District Court Denies Government Motion to Stay Decision Vacating USCIS Hold Policies in Dorcas v. USCIS
The U.S. District Court in Rhode Island denied the government’s motion to stay the 6/5/26 decision vacating USCIS's Benefits and Global Asylum Hold Policies, Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, and Country-Specific Factors Policy pending appeal. (Dorcas Int'l Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, 6/5/26)
Practice Alert: Disturbing Trends in Affirmative Asylum Adjudications
AILA members have reported a growing number of concerns in affirmative asylum adjudications. These reports suggest emerging patterns that may be affecting case processing, interview procedures, adjudication timelines, and decision-making in affirmative asylum cases.
Asylum & Refugee Committee Office Hours
The Asylum & Refugee Committee holds monthly office hours every 3rd Monday, 2-3 pm ET. Join this open forum to discuss issues practitioners are facing, to strategize, and to otherwise collaborate with a group of experts. All are welcome and the committee is grateful for members' participation.
BIA Finds DHS’s Oral Motion to Pretermit Provided Sufficient Notice of Intent to Remove Respondents to Ecuador under ACA
The BIA held that DHS’s oral motion to pretermit respondents’ applications for asylum and related protection provided sufficient notice of its intent to remove them to a third country pursuant to an asylum cooperative agreement (ACA). Matter of E–A–R–M–, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 746 (BIA 2026)
BIA Holds That DHS Need Not Provide Implementing Instrument to Establish That Respondents Are Subject to ACA
The BIA held that DHS need not provide an asylum cooperative agreement (ACA) implementing instrument or a full set of operative terms and criteria to show respondents are subject to the ACA for purposes of the safe third country bar. Matter of N–E–R–S–, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 753 (BIA 2026)
CA2 Vacates CAT Denial Where Agency Failed to Assess Whether Former Gang Member’s Likely Detention in El Salvador Would Constitute Torture
The court held that the agency failed to properly assess whether petitioner’s likely detention in El Salvador, including prison conditions intentionally created and maintained by the government, would amount to torture, and thus remanded his CAT claim. (Aguilar-Villalobos v. Blanche, 7/8/26)
BIA Holds That Conscription Is Not a Standalone Asylum Basis and the Inhuman Conduct Exception Must Be Tethered to a Protected Ground
The BIA held that conscription is not a standalone asylum basis absent a nexus to a protected ground, and that conscription requiring inhuman conduct condemned by the international community is persecution only when tethered to a protected ground. Matter of R–A–N–, 29 I&N Dec. 739 (BIA 2026)
CA4 Holds That Nominal Appeal of Removal Order Preserves CAT Review and Finds BIA Misapplied Clear-Error Review
The court held that noncitizens challenging only the result of withholding-only proceedings may preserve review of their CAT claims by filing a nominal appeal of their removal orders, and that BIA misapplied the clear error standard by reweighing the IJ’s findings. (Riley v. Blanche, 7/2/26)
BIA Holds IJ May Not Find Respondents Credible Solely for Candor in Admitting They Previously Lied to Obtain Immigration Benefits
The BIA sustained DHS’s appeal and remanded, holding that an IJ may not determine that a respondent is credible solely because the respondent was candid in admitting they previously lied to obtain immigration benefits. Matter of T–D–E–, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 732 (BIA 2026)
Supreme Court Allows Metering at U.S. Southern Border
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled DHS can turn back asylum seekers at the border, as arrival in the U.S. for purposes of applying for asylum requires crossing into the U.S. The INA does not entitle those at the border to apply for asylum or be inspected. (Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, 6/25/26)
AILA Joins Joint Comment Opposing the IFR on USCIS Immigration Fees and Related Procedures Required by H.R. 1
AILA joined ASAP and 84 organizations in a joint comment opposing the IFR on USCIS Immigration Fees and Related Procedures Required by H.R.1 Reconciliation Bill.
Call for Examples: Cases Impacted by the National Security Pause on Adjudications
On June 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court in Dorcas Int'l Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS vacated USCIS’s Benefits Hold, Global Asylum Hold, Comprehensive Re-Review, and Country-Specific Factors policies. AILA seeks updates on affected cases to assess government compliance with the order.
A Better Way on Immigration: Principles for America’s Future
Informed by the experience of the more than 18,000 immigration attorneys who are members of AILA, this document outlines five core principles to restore trust, strengthen the rule of law, and build a system that is fairer, more secure, and better aligned with the country America aspires to be.
BIA Finds Potential Eligibility for Collateral Relief Was Not a Basis to Deny DHS’s Motion to Pretermit Asylum
The BIA held that the IJ erred in denying DHS’s motion to pretermit the respondents’ asylum applications based on their potential eligibility for collateral relief, finding that was not a proper factor in ruling on such a motion. Matter of T–A–G–, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 2026)
BIA Holds That Grant of Withholding Is an Important Consideration in Discretionary Denial of Asylum
The BIA held that a grant of withholding of removal under the INA is an important consideration in whether asylum may be denied as a matter of discretion, given the mitigating impact withholding has on the risk of future persecution. Matter of P–A–C–, 29 I&N Dec. 708 (BIA 2026)
CA11 Holds Court Lacks Jurisdiction over Petition for Review of CAT Denial Unless It Also Challenges a Final Removal Order
The court held that judicial review of a Convention Against Torture (CAT) denial is available only when the petition also challenges a final removal order, and dismissed the petition for review aimed solely at the BIA’s CAT decision for lack of jurisdiction. (Hayles v. Att’y Gen., 6/22/26)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Reconsideration Where Petitioner Failed to Show She Was Ever Unable to Leave Her Abuser
The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration where the petitioner failed to establish membership in her proposed PSG of Brazilian women unable to leave relationships and her perceived-family PSG lacked particularity. (Alves-Pains v. Blanche, 6/18/26)
The Member Presale for the New 20th Edition of Kurzban’s Immigration Law Sourcebook Is Now Open!
AILA members can secure the lowest price that will be offered on this fully updated essential resource. But you must act now—offer ends on August 17, 2026.
BIA Says Evidentiary Hearing Generally Unnecessary to Apply Safe Third Country Bar Absent Individualized Risk in ACA Country
The BIA held that where a noncitizen subject to an asylum cooperative agreement (ACA) shows no individualized risk of harm in the country of removal, an evidentiary hearing is generally unnecessary to apply the safe third country bar. Matter of A–C–M–, 29 I&N Dec. 703 (BIA 2026)
Practice Alert: USCIS Update on Telephonic Appearance Policy
AILA's USCIS Operations Committee provides updates on the May 18, 2026 guidance on telephonic representation following response from USCIS regarding how to submit requests for telephonic appearances under "limited circumstances."
District Court Clarifies Vacatur of USCIS Policies That Paused Adjudication of Certain Benefit Requests
On June 11, 2026, the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island issued a second order clarifying the challenged policies in Dorcas Int'l Institute of Rhode Island, et al v. USCIS, et al as unlawful under the APA, and ordered the government to provide a status update on implementation within 24 hours.
USCIS Files Appeal of the Court Order Vacating Policies That Paused Adjudication of Certain Benefit Requests
On June 12, 2026, USCIS filed an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in response to the vacatur of policies pausing adjudication of certain benefit requests.
USCIS Announces Compliance with Court Order Vacating Hold Policies
USCIS announced that it will comply, pending further litigation, with the district court's 6/5/26 and 6/11/26 orders in Dorcas v. USCIS. The court vacated policies that placed processing holds on applications and added consideration of country-specific factors to discretionary benefit adjudications.
District Court Vacates USCIS Policies That Paused Adjudications of Certain Benefits Requests
The Benefits Hold Policy, the Global Asylum Hold Policy, the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, and the Country-Specific Factors Policy were found unlawful, discriminatory, and beyond agency authority and vacated under the APA. (Dorcas Int'l Institute of Rhode Island, et al v. USCIS, et al, 6/5/26)
USCIS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Limit Discretionary Employment Authorization
USCIS NPRM to limit eligibility for discretionary EADs. Notably, it would bar those arrested, charged, indicted, or convicted of a crime; who admit to committing a violent crime; or whom DHS determines to be in a gang from receiving discretionary EADs. Comments are due 8/4/26. (91 FR 34352, 6/5/26)