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
Federal Judge Vacates the Asylum Transit Ban
Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California vacated the "Circumvention of Lawful Pathways" rule, finding that the rule violated the APA because it was both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. (East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 7/25/23)
CA2 Finds BIA and IJ Erred in Finding Chinese Petitioner Who Practiced Falun Gong Was Not Credible
The court concluded that the IJ misidentified part of the petitioner’s testimony as inconsistent, improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies, and misconstrued as an omission a part of the petitioner’s testimony that comported with his Form I-589 asylum statement. (Chen v. Garland, 7/25/23)
AILA Asylum and Refugee Committee Submits Comment on I-589 Instructions
AILA’s Asylum and Refugee Committee submitted a comment in response to USCIS’s request for comments on changes to the I-589 instructions.
How I Spent My Summer Vacation (or the Economic Impact of Immigrants)
AILA Media Advo Committee Member Anthony Pawelski shares some key insights into the economic benefits of immigrants in New England states, and how the data shows how our “nation immensely benefit from our immigrant population“ using data from the American Immigration Council's Map the Impact t
CRS Releases Legal Sidebar on DHS’s “Metering” Policy
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) provided a legal sidebar on DHS’s “metering” policy, which limited the number of noncitizens who were processed each day at designated ports of entry along the U.S. southwest border, and the litigation that challenged this practice.
CA1 Says Salvadoran Petitioners Failed to Bear Their Burden as to Two Claimed PSGs
The court held that the BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners did not meet their burden as to the two separate particular social groups (PSGs) they claimed, namely “Salvadoran business owners perceived as wealthy” and the “Sanchez-Rivas nuclear family.” (Sanchez v. Garland, 7/14/23)
CA4 Finds Petitioner Showed Nexus Between Persecution by MS-13 Gang and Her Religion
Granting in part the petition for review, the court held that the BIA erred in not recognizing the nexus that the petitioner established between the persecution she suffered at the hands of the MS-13 gang and her Evangelical Christian faith. (Chicas-Machado v. Garland, 7/13/23)
CA8 Finds Mexican Petitioner Did Not Show Requisite Prejudice in Due Process Claim
The court held that BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration based on his due process claim where he had not shown actual prejudice, and found that the BIA’s application of the wrong legal standard was immaterial. (Arroyo-Sosa v. Garland, 7/13/23)
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Digging into the Ombudsman’s Take on the USCIS Backlog
AILA's Paul Stern digs into the recently released USCIS Ombudsman's Report which highlights continued backlogs and processing delays, urging readers to take action to help “ensure the agency has the resources needed to chart a course forward where progress is not just a promise, but a reality.“
CA4 Says Petitioner’s PSG of “Young Male Family Members of His Cousin Emily” Was Legally Cognizable
The court held that BIA erred in concluding that petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “young male family members of his cousin Emily” was not legally cognizable, and remanded for BIA to further consider his withholding of removal claim. (Santos Garcia v. Garland, 7/11/23)
CA4 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Salvadoran Petitioner After Finding IJ Adequately Developed the Record
The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ had adequately developed the record and had properly determined that the basis for the petitioner’s claims for relief was a generalized fear of criminal gang members and violent conditions in El Salvador. (Tepas v. Garland, 7/10/23)
AILA President Welcomes Implementation of New Family Reunification Parole Processes for Colombians, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans
AILA President Farshad Owji applauded the Biden Administration’s announcement of new Family Reunification Parole (FRP) processes for nationals of Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, reinforcing family reunification as the cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy.
CA8 Finds Mexican Petitioner Failed to Show Membership in Any of His 12 Proposed PSGs
Upholding the denial of asylum and related relief as to the Mexican petitioner, the court held that the BIA did not err in concluding that none of the petitioner’s 12 proposed particular social groups (PSGs) was cognizable for asylum purposes. (Uriostegui-Teran v. Garland, 7/6/23)
CA4 Vacates Denial of Asylum After Finding Aspects of BIA’s Decision Required Clarification
The court remanded for the BIA to clarify its determination that the Chinese petitioner could not show changed circumstances that would reset the clock for seeking asylum under INA §208(a)(2)(D) and to apply Zambrano v. Sessions in the first instance. (Chen v. Garland, 7/6/23)
CA4 Grants Asylum to Pakistani Petitioner Who Aided United States During Afghanistan War
The court remanded for the BIA to grant asylum to petitioner, a Pakistani businessman who had aided the United States during the war in Afghanistan, finding that any reasonable adjudicator would find that petitioner faced a well-founded threat of future persecution. (Ullah v. Garland, 7/6/23)
CA7 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Honduran Petitioner Whose Family Was Involved in a Feud with Another Family
The court upheld the denial of asylum to the petitioner—who had fled his home in Honduras due to a murderous feud between his family and another family—finding that he had failed to show that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect him. (Osorio-Morales v. Garland, 7/5/23)
The Immigration and Nationality Act’s Lost Appellate Rights Warnings
AILA Law Journal author Christopher Boom shares some insights into his recent article, noting that “Taking away appellate rights from noncitizens for not going to their hearings without warning them of this possibility first“ is unjust and contrary to the will of Congress.
CA2 Remands for BIA to Determine Whether Petitioners Received Notice Required to Trigger Frivolous Asylum Claim Bar
The court remanded for the BIA to determine whether the IJ made factual findings sufficient to support the notice required to trigger the permanent reentry bar that applies to noncitizens who file frivolous asylum claims after receiving notice of that consequence. (Ud Din v. Garland, 6/30/23)
AILA Sends Letter Highlighting Concerns Regarding Conducting Credible Fear Interviews in CBP Custody
On June 30, 2023, AILA sent a letter to the Biden Administration expressing concerns regarding the process of conducting CFIs in CBP custody.
Practice Alert: Defensive Asylum Biometrics Requests to USCIS
Defensive asylum biometrics requests are currently being processed for those filed in December 2022. AILA recommends that members not file multiple requests for any one case, and provide examples of egregious decisions, actions, compelling hardships, or lack of notices.
CA4 Vacates Denial of Asylum to Salvadoran Petitioner Where BIA Erred in Nexus Analysis
The court held that, in focusing on the reason why the MS-13 gang targeted the petitioner’s family members rather than on why the gang would target him if he returned to El Salvador, the IJ and BIA applied the incorrect legal standard for the nexus analysis. (A.G. v. Garland, 6/23/23)
Advocacy Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Asylum Bar’s Changes to Expedited Removal Procedures
Several advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of asylum seekers challenging the government’s asylum eligibility bar, “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways.” (M.A., et al. v. Jaddou, et al., 6/23/23)
CA10 Finds That IJ and BIA Did Not Err in Invoking Frivolous-Asylum Bar in Same Proceeding as Frivolousness Finding
The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the IJ erred in making a frivolousness finding as to the petitioner’s asylum application and invoking the statutory frivolous bar outlined in INA §208(d)(6) in the same proceeding. (Farnum v. Garland, 6/21/23)
USCIS Provides PowerPoint Presentation on USRAP
USCIS provided a PowerPoint presentation from its 6/20/23 webinar on USCIS refugee processing, including information on interview locations; specific populations including Afghan nationals, CAM, and protection transfer arrangements; regional processing centers, and more.
CA7 Finds That Substantial Evidence Supported IJ’s Adverse Credibility Determination as to Chinese Petitioner
The court held that, in denying petitioner’s claim for asylum, the IJ considered her testimony and evidence, pointed to several material inconsistencies and instances of evasive or untruthful testimony, and determined that her overall testimony lacked credibility. (Cui v. Garland, 6/16/23)