In recent years, immigration policies in the United States have sparked intense debate, particularly concerning the treatment of asylum seekers. A shift towards more stringent measures has emerged under the current administration, provoking widespread concern among observers and advocates alike. This article delves into the latest developments in asylum processing and raises important questions about due process for those seeking refuge.
Yves expresses that the Biden administration’s earlier lenience towards undocumented migrants was a pivotal factor that led to Trump’s rise to power. However, voters are now reconsidering their stance as they witness the harsh tactics employed by the administration to enforce stricter immigration laws. One significant but perhaps overlooked development is the move to drastically limit asylum grants and impact the treatment of those already in the application process.
The text below elaborates on how the current administration is attempting to implement a plan that transfers asylum seekers to other countries. This approach resembles Israel’s historical attempts to push Palestinians from Gaza into neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan. While the analogy isn’t perfect—given that Palestinians maintain a right to reside in Gaza as per international law—it sheds light on the troubling motivations of the administration. The intent appears to be not merely about controlling economic migration but reflects a deeper bias against people of color.
A particularly concerning aspect of this policy is the rapid expulsion of asylum seekers, with their cases being heard in third countries rather than the United States itself. Currently, individuals on U.S. soil are entitled to due process as stated in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. It raises significant legal questions about the feasibility of such outsourcing of justice. The timelines for potential court challenges remain uncertain.
An emergent trend is the increasing number of asylum applications and successful grants in recent years. According to DocketWise, the statistics for successful asylum applications have surged:
2022: 39,023
2023: 54,659
2024: 100,394
It’s notable to see the countries with high success rates for asylum applicants overlap substantially with those eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Some of those under TPS may have been in line for asylum applications:
The Department of Homeland Security is terminating TPS for Burma (Myanmar), Ethiopia, Haiti, South Sudan, and Venezuela.
Now, we will look into the latest details regarding this eviction initiative.
By Gwynne Hogan. Originally published at THE CITY on December 18, 2025
The Department of Homeland Security’s lawyers in New York City are aggressively seeking to close asylum claims en masse. They argue that individuals in deportation proceedings lack the right to apply for asylum in the U.S. since they can pursue claims in countries like Honduras, Ecuador, and Uganda, per recent U.S. agreements.
This new tactic has gained traction among immigration attorneys across the city, with reports indicating its implementation in San Francisco’s immigration courts. In New York City, observers noted this novel strategy commencing in full force recently, setting the stage for potential mass removals in the near future.
During a recent court session, a DHS attorney initiated motions to “pretermit” asylum claims, attempting to dismiss individuals’ claims and leave them vulnerable to deportation to countries they may not even have previously visited.
“The Department is moving to pretermit the respondent’s asylum application,” the attorney stated, citing the cooperative agreements with Ecuador, Honduras, and Uganda as grounds for dismissal.
Judge Tiesha Peal provided court attendees until January 22 to respond to the motion in writing, with subsequent hearings scheduled for early February for her ruling.
“Do you understand?” Judge Peal addressed an Ecuadorean woman, who had been instructed to apply for asylum in Uganda or Honduras. “What that means is the government is saying you are not eligible for asylum here.”
“Yes,” the woman replied, breaking into tears upon exiting the courtroom. “It’s so unjust,” she lamented in Spanish, identifying herself only by her first name, Narcisa.
Another immigrant, Darlene, also left the courtroom in tears, expressing, “I’m terrified. It’s my first court date.”
Benjamin Remy, an immigration attorney from the New York Legal Assistance Group, attempted to console the distressed women with information on how to respond to the motions.
“It’s not an order of deportation,” he reassured them in Spanish. “You have a chance to respond.”
Currently, it remains unclear whether DHS plans to apply these motions uniformly or target specific groups of asylum applicants.
In a statement issued to THE CITY, DHS stated it was “working to remove illegal aliens from our country as expediently as possible while ensuring they receive all available legal processes, including a hearing before an immigration judge.”
“Asylum Cooperative Agreements are lawful bilateral arrangements that allow illegal aliens seeking asylum in the United States to pursue protection in a partner country that has agreed to fairly adjudicate their claims,” the statement elaborated. “DHS is employing every lawful strategy available to confront the backlog and misuse of the asylum system.”
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court authorized the Trump administration to ramp up third-country removals, temporarily lifting a lower court’s order that required prior written notification and an opportunity for defense. However, large-scale implementations of this practice have yet to materialize.
As of the start of this year through mid-October, just 62 individuals from New York were deported to nations other than their countries of origin, though this figure is expected to grow in the coming months.
To keep their asylum claims valid, these individuals must file a written motion to the court, though the specifics of what to include remain ambiguous, even for experienced immigration attorneys. This uncertainty particularly impacts recent immigrants who may not speak English or afford legal representation.
“We have no statute,” Remy remarked. “All we have is the law.”
The Board of Immigration Appeals, which establishes precedents in immigration courts, recently decided a comparable case in October, indicating that judges should generally permit motions to keep asylum claims open unless a person can demonstrate a substantial likelihood of facing persecution in the proposed third country.
Remy condemned the current administration’s tactics, calling it “a slaughter,” and lamented that it marks a significant regression from previous immigration enforcement measures, where individuals still had a chance to win their cases. “Now you’ve just seen asylum be completely cut off,” he asserted.
The outcomes of these motions to pretermit are still uncertain, and immigration judges have been providing individuals between 10 to 30 days to respond before making decisions. The full impact of these motions on asylum claims will likely become clearer in the coming weeks.
This latest attempt to pretermit asylum claims represents yet another upheaval for the nation’s immigration courts, which fall under the Department of Justice’s Executive Branch. These courts have faced immense pressure from the Trump administration, resulting in the firing of numerous tenured judges across the nation, specifically targeting those with higher asylum approval rates.
Amidst a tense atmosphere, volunteer court-watchers communicated quietly with one another in the hallways, trying to help respondents understand the situation and their next steps.
“I can’t tell you how many people are asking me, ‘Where is Uganda?’” one court-watcher lamented, declining to be named.
“I’ve never felt this sick in here,” another added, echoing a growing sense of despair.
