New Immigration Asylum Policy Shakes Hopes for Millions

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Millions of foreign nationals awaiting their asylum decisions have received troubling news from Sirce Owen, the interim director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). In a recent internal memo, Owen outlined ‘new legal standards’ that empower immigration judges to dismiss ‘legally insufficient’ asylum cases.

This policy change mirrors tactics employed during President Donald Trump’s administration (January 20, 2017, to January 20, 2021), when quotas were imposed and immigration courts were ordered to expedite deportation processes. Owen stated that judges have a responsibility to manage their dockets efficiently and acknowledged that the current backlog of nearly 4 million cases, primarily asylum claims, indicates a lack of prompt handling.

“This policy memo makes it clear that adjudicators are not prohibited from taking — and, in fact, should take — all appropriate measures to promptly resolve cases on their dockets that do not have viable legal paths for relief or protection from removal,” Owen wrote.

The new guidelines specify that individuals facing deportation must demonstrate their eligibility for any form of relief or protection from deportation. Failure to establish ‘prima facie’ eligibility for asylum can lead to automatic cancellation of their requests. According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, the EOIR’s case backlog surged from approximately 520,000 cases at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency in January 2017 to about 1.2 million cases when Trump transitioned to Joe Biden.

“It’s not a new concept, but many cases will likely be denied even without a hearing in front of a judge,” said José Guerrero, an immigration attorney based in Miami. “Basically, judges can review asylum cases and determine their legal sufficiency without holding a hearing. If an applicant did not properly articulate their claim, judges may reject it outright.”

Guerrero elaborated that for an asylum case to be considered properly articulated, it must be based on one of the five recognized grounds for persecution: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. If the asylum request is found legally deficient, a judge may issue a deportation order.

“In that case, the affected foreign national has 30 days to appeal the ruling,” Guerrero added. He urged individuals currently awaiting asylum decisions to consult with an attorney to evaluate their cases and explore ways to strengthen their applications.

Other immigration lawyers consulted by Univision Noticias echoed that poverty, lack of employment, or seeking a better future for one’s children do not qualify for asylum status.

In her memo, Owen emphasized that while foreign nationals must demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for asylum in certain applications, there seems to be a misunderstanding among adjudicators regarding the application of these principles to asylum requests. She referenced a 1989 precedent, Matter of Fefe, which established the requirement that petitioners must provide sworn statements and undergo thorough questioning regarding the integrity and accuracy of their applications. Owen asserted that the current regulations clearly state that an additional hearing is not required once an immigration judge finds that an asylum application is subject to mandatory denial grounds.

The EOIR’s new direction suggests a significant shift in the treatment of asylum cases, raising concerns for those who have placed their hopes in the U.S. immigration system.