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
CA9 Holds That Agency Improperly Relied on Trivial Inconsistencies and Disregarded Translation Difficulties in Adverse Credibility Finding
The court held that the adverse credibility determination lacked substantial evidence because the agency improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies and disregarded significant translation difficulties, and that it also legally erred in denying CAT relief. (Mbueno-Vita v. Blanche, 8/28/26)
CA9 Holds That BIA Erred by Requiring Quantitative Evidence of Torture and Failing to Give Reasoned Consideration to Expert Reports
The court held that the BIA erred by imposing a quantitative evidence requirement, where the regulations require it to consider all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture, and by failing to give reasoned consideration to expert reports. (Parada Calderon v. Blanche, 8/28/26)
Practice Alert: DOS Issues Cable on Asylum-Related Questions to Visa Applicants
On April 28, 2026, DOS issued a cable directing consular officers to ask nonimmigrant visa applicants if they fear returning to their country of residence, and to refuse visas for those who respond affirmatively.
USCIS Updates Guidance on Rosario Class Action Protections for Asylum-Based EAD Applicants
USCIS updated guidance for Rosario class members, clarifying eligibility and procedures for certain asylum applicants seeking an initial EAD. The guidance reaffirms the 30-day processing requirement and explains options for addressing delays.
CA1 Holds No Remand Needed Where IJ Applied First Circuit Law in the Alternative and BIA Adopted That Rationale
The court held that no remand was needed where the IJ applied First Circuit law in the alternative and the BIA adopted it, that the adjustment and asylum-timeliness rulings were unreviewable, and that the Jamaican petitioner’s proposed PSG was not cognizable. (Bromfield v. Blanche, 8/25/26)
CA3 Finds CAT-Only Petition Moot After Removal and Holds Reentry Bar Is Not a Collateral Consequence
The court held that a petition for review challenging only the denial of CAT deferral was moot upon petitioner’s removal to El Salvador, because the reentry bar is not a collateral consequence of CAT denial and ICE Directive No. 11061.1 did not apply. (Mejia-Henriquez v. Att’y Gen., 8/25/26)
District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction to Lift Adjudication Hold for Travel Ban Countries
The court certified a class of nationals of the 39 travel ban countries and Palestinian authority whose pending asylum or benefit applications are subject to the adjudication hold in PM-602-0192 or PM-602-0194 and granted a preliminary injunction against the hold. (Red Eagle Law v. Edlow, 8/24/26)
CA1 Upholds BIA’s Rejection of Asylum Claim Based on Form Order Granting Relative Asylum Without Reasoning or Facts
The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that a form order granting a relative asylum, without reasoning or facts, showed no prima facie eligibility for asylum, and found that the Brazilian petitioners showed neither past persecution nor a well-founded fear. (Pereira Alves v. Blanche, 8/24/26)
BIA Finds Respondent Failed to Meet Burden to Show He Was Not Flight Risk Where He Engaged in Asylum Fraud and the IJ Denied Asylum
The BIA held that the respondent did not meet his burden to establish that he was not a flight risk where he engaged in asylum fraud and where the IJ denied his asylum application. Matter of Y–M–B–, 30 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2026)
Call for Examples: EOIR Notice Issues
The EOIR committee is requesting AILA Members provide examples of delays in receiving notice (or instances of not receiving notice) to further illustrate current issues with notice from EOIR.
CA8 Finds Substantial Evidence Supported No Nexus Between Domestic Abuse and Guatemalan Petitioner’s Proposed Social Groups
The court held that substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief because the record did not compel a finding that petitioner’s abuse was on account of a proposed social group or that Guatemala would acquiesce in torture. (Matias-Pablo v. Blanche, 8/14/26)
CA5 Finds INA §242(a)(2) Does Not Strip Jurisdiction to Review Denial of Motion to Submit Late-Filed Evidence
The court held that INA §242(a)(2) does not strip jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to submit late-filed evidence, and that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s adverse credibility determination and its denial of CAT deferral of removal. (Lopez-Barrera v. Blanche, 8/14/26)
CA5 Holds That Removal Under INA §237(a)(4)(A)(i) for Violating an Export Law Is Not Limited to National Security Threats
The court held that the removal ground for export law violations, INA §237(a)(4)(A)(i), is not limited to national security threats and covered the petitioner’s unlawful export of firearms, and that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT deferral. (Olibris v. Blanche, 8/14/26)
CA9 Holds That Former Salvadoran Police Officer Failed to Show Persecution Was on Account of His Former Police Status
The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that the petitioner, a former Salvadoran police officer, failed to establish a nexus to his status as a former officer, because all the threats he received occurred while he was still active. (Gonzalez-Argueta v. Blanche, 8/13/26)
Practice Alert: USCIS Interim Final Rule on Mandatory E-filing
On August 11, USCIS published an Interim Final Rule establishing a framework for mandatory e-filing. The USCIS Operations Committee provides this alert explaining the process by which USCIS can mandate that certain forms are filed electronically and how individuals may apply for a waiver.
SAVE and E-Verify Announce Status Change Reports Now Include TPS and Asylum-related EADs
SAVE and E-Verify announced that Status Change Reports now include invalidated EADs for categories C08 (asylum applicant), C09 (adjustment of status applicant under INA §245), A12 (TPS holder) and C19 (TPS applicant). Previously, it included only category C11 (parolee) EADs.
CA4 Holds That INA §242(b)(1)’s 30-Day Petition for Review Deadline Is Subject to Equitable Tolling
The court held that INA §242(b)(1)’s 30-day deadline is subject to equitable tolling, and found that the BIA erred in its political opinion and particular social group (PSG) analyses and abused its discretion in denying CAT relief. (Navarro Cerritos v. Blanche, 8/11/26)
CA4 Holds That Nexus Analysis Must Focus on Why Persecutor Threatened Petitioner, Not Another Person
The court held that the agency legally erred by focusing on why the persecutor targeted her former partner rather than why he threatened her, and that the record compelled the conclusion that the nexus requirement was met. (Orellana-Ramos v. Blanche, 8/10/26)
Practice Alert: Adjustment of Status and "Re-Vetting" Interviews for Refugees
Practitioners throughout the country have recently reported receiving interview notices for refugees purporting to be for adjustment of status. Some practitioners report that USCIS local field offices issued the interview notices, not a USCIS service center.
CA1 Holds Substantial Evidence Supports No Nexus Where Robberies Were for Financial Gain and Threats Were Revenge
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that no protected ground was a reason for petitioner’s harm, where robberies were for financial gain and threats were revenge, and thus upheld the denial of asylum and related claims. (Monzon Guzman v. Blanche, 8/7/26)
CA6 Holds That Serious-Nonpolitical-Crime Bar’s “Serious Reasons for Believing” Standard Requires Only Probable Cause
The court held that the serious-nonpolitical-crime bar’s “serious reasons for believing” standard requires only probable cause, and that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the government met its burden of establishing probable cause. (Spindola v. Blanche, 8/7/26)
USCIS Announces Updated Interview Rescheduling Procedures for Affirmative Asylum Interviews
USCIS announced updated procedures for rescheduling affirmative asylum interviews, effective 8/21/26. Applicants must establish exceptional circumstances to reschedule. USCIS will no longer issue Failure to Appear Warning notices and may dismiss or refer certain cases after a missed interview.
New Edition of Kurzban’s Immigration Law Sourcebook Released by AILA
AILA is proud to release the 20th edition of Kurzban’s Immigration Law Sourcebook, the must-have resource filled with expert guidance helping readers navigate the labyrinthine U.S. immigration laws, including recent Supreme Court rulings and their impact.
USCIS Issues Policy Alert on DNA Testing in Requests for Additional Evidence
USCIS issued a policy alert (PA-2026-06) updating Policy Manual guidance to require officers to suggest DNA testing as an optional form of evidence to establish a claimed genetic relationship when an officer determines additional evidence is necessary. Feedback is due 9/7/26.
CA5 Holds That Adverse Credibility Findings on Employment and Imprisonment as to Afghan Petitioner Were Unsupported
The court held that the agency’s adverse credibility finding as to the Afghan petitioner’s employment history and prior imprisonment was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the agency failed to meaningfully consider key evidence supporting his claims. (Eqbal v. Blanche, 8/6/26)