The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued new guidance permitting immigration judges to dismiss asylum applications without holding a hearing when the applications are deemed legally insufficient. This decision, announced by Sirce Owen, Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), addresses the growing backlog of immigration cases, which currently includes nearly 4 million pending matters.
In a memorandum released on [Friday’s Date], Owen emphasized that immigration judges are not prohibited from taking action to resolve cases that lack viable legal grounds for relief or protection from removal. Judges are encouraged to pretermit (deny) asylum applications that do not meet the required legal standards without proceeding to a formal hearing.
Owen explained, “Adjudicators may properly consider pretermission of a legally deficient asylum application, though the final decision rests with the presiding adjudicator.” Pretermission allows immigration judges to reject an asylum claim outright if it fails to meet the basic legal requirements.
The new policy aims to address inefficiencies in the asylum process. Owen highlighted that the backlog of cases presents significant challenges and that hearings should be reserved for claims where factual disputes are present. If no factual disputes exist and the application is legally insufficient, a hearing is not necessary, according to Owen’s memorandum.
While this new policy is expected to expedite case resolutions, concerns have been raised by legal advocates regarding its potential impact on due process. Vanessa Dojaquez-Torres, Practice and Policy Counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), expressed concerns that this policy could disproportionately affect pro se applicants—individuals without legal representation—who may struggle to navigate the complex legal landscape of immigration law.
Critics, including Jared Jaskot, an immigration attorney, argue that the policy could harm vulnerable individuals seeking asylum by denying them an opportunity to present their case before an immigration judge. “Many asylum seekers are not legally trained and are not provided with counsel,” Jaskot explained. “This policy risks depriving them of their right to a fair hearing.”
Supporters of the memo argue that it is a necessary step to reduce inefficiencies in the overwhelmed immigration system. The memo clarifies that, under current regulations, no hearing is required when an asylum claim is legally deficient, and further proceedings would be redundant.
This release highlights the DOJ’s decision, its potential impacts on the asylum process, and reactions from both supporters and critics. It is designed to inform the public and media outlets of the recent policy change and its implications for immigration law.
