Stories from the Field: The Devastating Impact of Recent Asylum Changes
Numerous changes to asylum policy and practice over the past year have created a narrow, nearly impossible path for individuals to access lifesaving protections. Below, you can read examples from AILA members of some of the devastating consequences of those new policies, along with judges’ and asylum officers’ increasingly hostile attitudes towards asylum seekers.
“I always side with OPLA.”
At an asylum hearing for a man who fled civil war in Angola , the immigration judge (IJ) stated on the record that she always sides with OPLA—referring to the Department of Homeland Security prosecutor with the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). She then dismissed the case without a full hearing on the merits; she did not allow testimony or accept any evidence. In doing so, the judge denied this asylum seeker the most basic elements of due process guaranteed under U.S. law.
At the beginning of the hearing, the attorney and asylum seeker appeared virtually. The judge then abruptly reversed her usual practice of allowing virtual appearances, telling the asylum seeker and his attorney that they must appear in person that same day or face immediate termination of the asylum case. The man and his counsel then drove 100 miles to appear in her courtroom, only to have the judge grant the government’s motion to dismiss anyway. ICE agents were waiting outside the courtroom for the asylum seeker and detained him immediately after the hearing. His attorney believes that the IJ required the asylum seeker to appear in person so that ICE could detain him, as it seemed the IJ, OPLA, and ICE officers were coordinating.
The asylum seeker fled a lengthy civil war in Angola and survived in a refugee camp in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He served as a spokesperson for fellow refugees in the camp—calling for access to education and employment when it was time to return to their home country. For his non-violent advocacy, Angolan officials targeted him when he returned to Angola and killed others who had spoken out.
The U.S. immigration judge’s refusal to consider his claim—and her shocking statement of always favoring the government—not only disregards the humanitarian principles of U.S. asylum law but also undermines public confidence in the fairness and independence of the immigration court system. Such conduct highlights the urgent need for structural reforms to ensure judges adhere to due process requirements, exercise impartiality, and are held accountable when they fail to provide a fair hearing in matters where human lives are at stake.
Denied even the opportunity to be heard
An immigration judge told an asylum seeker at his asylum hearing she was “tired of ‘these’ people coming to the United States and assuming they have a right to the court’s time.” She declared they did not have that right and then pretermitted the case—meaning she dismissed the claim and ordered the family removed without allowing any testimony or evidence.
This Venezuelan asylum seeker—who fled severe shortages, political repression, and threats from government-aligned groups—had finally reached his long-awaited U.S. immigration court hearing. He survived a treacherous journey to the United States with his wife and two children, only to have a U.S. judge stop him from presenting his case in court through pretermission. Once rare, pretermission is now becoming a routine tool that enables judges to shut down asylum cases before they are heard. In the current environment—where anti-immigrant rhetoric is used in official communications—this unchecked discretion opens the door to prejudice in the courtroom.
The asylum seeker originally filed his claim on his own, using brief and standard language to state fear of persecution. After he found counsel, his attorney submitted a complete amended application, extensive evidence, and all required supporting documents on time. Despite this, the judge insisted the court “had no idea what the claim was,” disregarding the updated filing. The attorney noted that another judge accepted a nearly identical case just one week earlier. This case is strong: both parents were active in Venezuela’s political opposition and were repeatedly targeted by government-aligned groups and federal police. The family has young children, pays taxes, and has complied with all requirements the U.S. has asked of them. Yet they were denied even the opportunity just to be heard. Their attorney is now rushing to file an appeal, as the family remains in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program with frequent check-ins and urgently needs proof that their case is still pending so that the family is not detained.
This case should alarm anyone who believes in due process. When judges can dismiss asylum cases based on bias rather than law, the system fails the very people it is meant to protect.