Asylum

On April 23, 2026, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) submitted a comment opposing a proposed rule that would significantly limit work authorization for asylum seekers. The ILRC comments that the rule would drastically restrict access to work permits and make it nearly impossible for many asylum seekers to survive while their cases are pending. It highlights that the proposal would lengthen wait times, add new eligibility barriers, and allow broad discretionary denials, effectively undermining the asylum system and deterring legitimate applicants. The ILRC contends the rule would cause severe economic, social, and health harms, including lost wages, increased exploitation, family instability, and reduced access to legal representation and basic services, while also disproportionately harming immigrants of color. Additionally, the ILRC criticizes related form changes as unlawful and overly burdensome, concluding that the proposal lacks evidence to support its stated goals and urging DHS and USCIS to withdraw it entirely.

The U.S. Department of Justice transferred out all permanent staff from the Recognition and Accreditation program in March 2026, rendering the future of the program uncertain. ILRC wrote to DOJ demanding reinstatement of staff and a return to reasonable processing times for applications.

In the current landscape of increased immigration enforcement, many noncitizens are considering the option of leaving the United States in order to return to their home country or to seek opportunities in a different country. In the current landscape of increased immigration enforcement, many noncitizens are considering the option of leaving the United States in order to return to their home country or to seek opportunities in a different country. This practice advisory provides guidance to immigration attorneys and advocates who are asked to provide such advice and walks through common issues for the client to consider before deciding to leave the United States. It also includes a checklist of helpful questions and information to review with the client before they depart.

This practice advisory is Part I of a two-part advisory on civil fines and civil penalties instituted by DHS against noncitizens. Part I discusses the procedures for instituting a fine and recommendations for contesting and appealing a civil fine instituted by DHS. Part II will discuss statutory and Constitutional arguments and defenses against the issuance of fines.

ILRC submitted this comment to DHS opposing recent changes to FOIA rules effective January 22, 2026 that restrict public access. DHS published a final rule in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act by unlawfully bypassing public notice and comment. The rule eliminates paper filing of FOIA requests and allows DHS in its discretion to administratively close requests that it deems to insufficiently describe the records sought.

The U.S. Department of Justice has issued a new rule that changes how immigration appeals are handled. The new rule shortens the time you have to appeal—which is how you ask for another court to review an unfavorable decision from an immigration judge.

On December 22, 2025, DHS published a final rule impacting processing of FOIA requests by all DHS components. The rule is effective January 22, 2026. Despite the major changes made by the rule, no period of public comment was provided. The rule eliminates paper filing of FOIA requests with DHS as of January 22, 2026. FOIAs to DHS must be filed online after that date. The rule also states that DHS can, in its discretion, administratively close or make “requests for clarification” where it deems the request to be an inadequate description of the records sought.

In recent months, practitioners have been reporting troubling new patterns in FOIA processing of A-file requests. Some people report unusually high rejection rates on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for reasons related to address requirements. Rejections due to “no record” also have been reported even where the requester is sure that there is a record because they have a partial paper trail of contacts with USCIS. Frequent over redaction of FOIA responses also has been reported. This alert discusses the address issue and suggests how to respond.

Information about these agreements and the rights of asylum seekers in immigration court proceedings if the government makes this argument in an immigration court hearing.

ILRC submitted this comment on November 25, 2025 opposing the Interim Final Rule (IFR) eliminating automatic extensions of Employment Authorization Documents (“EADs”). The IFR was improvidently issued without prior notice and comment, is unsupported by data or reasoned analysis, and falsely claims that it is part of a foreign affairs exception intended for regulations which impact international policies.