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
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)
BIA Holds That “Brazilian Children” and “Abandoned Brazilian Children” Lack Particularity and Reverses Humanitarian Asylum Grant
The BIA held that “Brazilian children” and “abandoned Brazilian children” lack sufficient particularity and that respondent, who did not show Brazil was unable or unwilling to control perpetrators, was ineligible for humanitarian asylum. Matter of A–G–O–F–, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 772 (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.
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)
BIA Vacates CAT Deferral Where IJ Relied on Generalized Country Conditions and Overlooked Applicant’s Individualized Circumstances
The BIA held that the IJ clearly erred in finding likely torture based on generalized country conditions evidence while overlooking the applicant's individualized circumstances, and that he did not show likely acquiescence by a public official. Matter of H–L–S–M–, 29 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2026)
BIA Vacates CAT Deferral Where IJ Relied on Generalized Country Conditions and Overlooked Applicant’s Individualized Circumstances
The BIA held that the IJ clearly erred in finding likely torture based on generalized country conditions evidence while overlooking the applicant's individualized circumstances, and that he did not show likely acquiescence by a public official. Matter of H–L–S–M–, 29 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2026)
BIA Remands Where IJ Did Not Meaningfully Address Credibility Inconsistencies and Internal Relocation Evidence
The BIA held remand was warranted because the IJ’s credibility finding did not meaningfully address apparent inconsistencies and, assuming the respondent established past persecution, failed to consider years of internal relocation without harm. Matter of H–I–A–H–, 29 I&N Dec. 823 (BIA 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)
USCIS Announces New Asylum Office in San Antonio
USCIS announced that it opened an additional asylum office location in San Antonio, Texas. Beginning 5/28/26, individuals who filed for asylum with USCIS and reside in the Houston Asylum Office's jurisdiction may be interviewed at either the Houston or San Antonio Asylum Office.
BIA Holds That Respondent’s Federal Health Care Fraud Conviction Was for a Particularly Serious Crime
The BIA dismissed the respondent’s appeal, holding that his conviction for health care fraud under 18 USC §1347 was for a particularly serious crime barring asylum and withholding of removal, and affirming the denial of CAT protection. Matter of J–O–A–, 29 I&N Dec. 672 (BIA 2026)
BIA Finds Respondent Not Credible and Ineligible for Asylum, Withholding, and CAT Due to Inconsistencies Related to Identity
The BIA held the IJ properly found the respondent was not credible, and ultimately ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), due to various inconsistencies related to his identity. Matter of I–S–M–, 29 I&N Dec. 811 (BIA 2026)
Asylum Cases on Political Opinion
This issue-specific page lists published asylum cases that relate to persecution on account of political opinion. The page includes published federal court and BIA cases from 2008 to the present. Special thanks to AILA member R. Mark Frey.
CA1 Vacates Orders for Failing to State with Sufficient Particularity Whether BIA Addressed Imputed-Mungiki Persecution Arguments
The court held that the BIA’s orders dismissing the petitioner’s appeal did not state with sufficient particularity their basis for rejecting his arguments that Kenyan police would persecute him as a presumed Mungiki based on his family status or Kikuyu ethnicity. (Muchiri v. Blanche, 6/3/26)