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
CA2 Holds That INA §209(b) Allows Only Noncitizens with Current Asylum Status to Adjust to LPR status
The court held that the plain text of INA §209(b) allows only noncitizens with current asylum status to adjust to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, and concluded that petitioners could not adjust to LPR status because their asylum status had been terminated. (Wassily v. Bondi, 8/7/25)
CA7 Affirms CAT Denial as to Jamaican Petitioner Who Suffered from Severe Mental Illness
The court concluded that the BIA correctly held that the Jamaican petitioner, who suffered from severe mental illness, failed to establish specific intent to torture, and thus upheld the BIA’s denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). (Fiddler v. Bondi, 8/7/25)
CA4 Vacates BIA’s Conclusory Judgment That Salvadoran Petitioner’s PSG Was Circular
The court held that the BIA erred in rejecting the petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG)—“El Salvadoran women who are continually sexually abused and tortured by gang members…”—without conducting a fact-based, case-specific analysis. (Hernandez Guardado v. Bondi, 8/5/25)
CA10 Finds BIA Did Not Err in Upholding IJ’s 15-Day Asylum Filing Deadline and Denial of Continuance
The court held that the BIA properly upheld the IJ’s imposition of a 15-day asylum filing deadline and denial of a continuance, found that the BIA did not deprive the petitioner of his right to counsel, and concluded that petitioner’s motion to reopen was moot. (Chavez-Govea v. Bondi, 8/5/25)
CA7 Upholds Denial of Withholding and CAT Relief to Petitioner Who Feared Cartel Violence in Mexico
The court held that the record did not compel a conclusion that the petitioner, who feared for his life in Mexico due to cartel violence, proved that he was eligible for withholding of removal under the INA or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). (P. A.-V. v. Bondi, 8/4/25)
USCIS Policy Alert on Refugee and Asylee Adjustment of Status Interview Criteria
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to provide clarification on the interview criteria for asylees or refugees who are applying for adjustment of status, effective 8/1/25. Feeback is due 9/1/25.
CA4 Upholds BIA’s Reversal of CAT Relief Based on Adverse Credibility and Insufficient Likelihood of Torture
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ committed clear error in finding that petitioner demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of torture to be eligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). (Colorado Navarro v. Bondi, 7/31/25)
CA9 Holds That BIA Erred in Finding Romanian Petitioners’ Harm Did Not Cumulatively Rise to Level of Past Persecution
The court found that the record compelled the conclusion that the petitioners’ past experiences collectively rose to the level of persecution, and that the BIA erred when it determined that the Roma ethnicity is not a disfavored group in Romania. (Lapadat v. Bondi, 2/12/25, amended 7/31/25)
CA3 Holds That It Lacks Jurisdiction over “Extraordinary Circumstances” Inquiry as to Untimely Filed Asylum Applications
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the petitioner failed to show extraordinary circumstances under INA §208(a)(2)(D) sufficient to excuse the late filing of his asylum application. (Real v. Att’y Gen., 7/30/25)
Client Flyer: New Immigration Fees Authorized by the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”
AILA provides a flyer to inform your clients of the new immigration fees authorized by H.R.1 (the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"). The flyer is available as a generic PDF version as well as a Word version you can customize with your firm's information. Please share.
Practice Pointer: Next Steps After USCIS Dismisses an Affirmative I-589 Due to an Alleged Prior Expedited Removal Order
AILA members report that USCIS is dismissing properly filed affirmative asylum applications based on alleged prior expedited removal (ER) orders. Based on these examples, it appears Homeland Security neither issued ER orders nor placed many of them into ER proceedings.
Think Immigration: DC Court Holds Firm Against Trump Attempt to Use 212(f) to End Asylum at Border
In this blog post, Miroslava Becerra Garcia and Amy Grenier dig in to the recent ruling in RAICES v. Noem in the D.C. District Court which found that the Administration did not have the right to suspend the entry of noncitizens at the U.S. Border which would have prevented claims of asylum.
FOIA Litigation on Suspension of I-485 Processing for Asylees and Refugees
The Council and AILA sued DHS and USCIS to obtain records about the suspension of green card processing for asylees and refugees. On 7/28/25, USCIS produced an email announcing the “temporary pause” and an email lifting it. (American Immigration Council and AILA v. DHS and USCIS, 7/28/25)
CA1 Upholds Asylum Denial as to Guatemalan Petitioner Targeted by Robberies While Traveling to School
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that petitioner failed to establish a nexus between the five robberies he suffered while traveling to school in Guatemala and either of his proposed particular social groups (PSGs). (Cano-Gutierrez v. Bondi, 7/24/25)
CA3 Upholds Withholding of Removal Denial as to Guatemalan Indigenous Mother and Son Targeted by Gangs
The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s conclusion that the petitioners, an indigenous Mayam Mam mother and her son, were targeted by gangs in Guatemala for financial reasons rather than on account of their membership in a protected group. (A. G.-G. v. Att’y Gen., 7/24/25)
Practice Alert: New Immigration Fees Authorized by the Reconciliation Bill
USCIS has delayed collecting new fees for certain immigration benefit requests until it can operationalize its processes. AILA expects USCIS to provide details on the implementation in the coming days.
BIA Reverses IJ’s Grant of CAT Deferral to Venezuelan Respondent After Finding No Individualized Risk of Torture
The BIA held that evidence of human rights abuses in Venezuela and past threats to the respondent did not establish an individualized risk of torture, where the last threat occurred years before respondent left the country and she was unharmed. Matter of O–Y–A–E–, 29 I&N Dec. 190 (BIA 2025)
CA9 Upholds CAT Denial as to Mexican Petitioner Who Feared Retaliation from Cartels
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), finding that the petitioner did not meet his burden to show that it was more likely than not he would be tortured upon his return to Mexico. (Perez Cruz v. Bondi, 7/21/25)
BIA Holds PSG Defined Only by Noncitizen’s Sex or Sex and Nationality Is Overbroad
The BIA held that a particular social group (PSG) defined by a noncitizen’s sex or sex and nationality, standing alone, is overbroad and insufficiently particular to be cognizable. Matter of K-E-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 145 (BIA 2025)
USCIS Announces Updated Fees Based on H.R. 1
USCIS will publish a Federal Register notice on 7/22/25 with updated fees based on the H.R 1 Reconciliation Bill (H.R. 1). Applicants must submit the new fees with benefit requests postmarked on or after 7/22/25. USCIS will reject any form postmarked on or after 8/21/25, without the proper fees.
CA7 Remands Asylum Claim of Petitioner Who Was Persecuted by Man Who Allegedly Killed Six of Her Family Members
The court found that the petitioner had shown the requisite nexus between her family membership and her persecution and had endured a prolonged pattern of threats and accompanying violence, and had thus established past persecution. (Mejia-Hernandez, et al. v. Bondi, 7/17/25)
EOIR Issues Policy Memo on Statutory Fees Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
EOIR Acting Director Sirce Owen issued Policy Memorandum (PM) 25-35, addressing updates in the statutory fees under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. On 7/17/25, PM 25-36 (amended) was posted to replace this PM and clarify certain points for adjudicators, including updates to the table of EOIR fees.
Policy Brief: The Dignity Act of 2025
On July 15, Congresswomen Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) and Veronica Escobar (D-TX) and 18 other House members introduced an updated version of the “Dignity Act.” This brief provides an analysis of key parts of the bill.
Practice Alert: Some Immigration Courts Accept Asylum Application Filings Without $100 Fee Receipt
Updated reports from members indicate some immigration courts are accepting Form I-589 filings without proof of fee payment, while other courts are reportedly still rejecting them.
Agreement Between U.S. and Honduran Governments for Cooperation in Examination of Protection Requests
DHS published an agreement between the U.S. and Honduran governments to cooperate on protection requests, signed 3/8/25 and amended 6/25/25. It outlines conditions for Honduras to process protection requests for some asylum seekers who sought protection in the U.S. (90 FR 30076, 7/8/25)