Term Page
Asylum Path Fragment
community 
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.
This practice advisory provides information about recently implemented fee increases at USCIS and EOIR. These fee increases are a result of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” also known as HR1. This advisory explores what we know and what we still don’t know about the fees, how to pay them, and potential future changes.
On July 28, 2025, the ILRC submitted a comment opposing a new government proposal to add extra questions to nine immigration forms, including applications for naturalization, asylum, and green cards.
On May 2, 2025 the ILRC submitted a letter signed by 115 organizations has opposing a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) proposed rule to expand the information collected on immigration forms.
On May 2, 2025 the ILRC submitted a comment opposing a proposed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rule that would expand the collection of personal information from immigration applicants.
On May 5, 2025 the ILRC submitted a comment opposing a proposed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rule that would require immigrants to disclose their social media identifiers on application forms.
In recent months, the Department of Homeland Security has begun filing thousands of motions to recalendar administratively closed proceedings. This trend is raising questions about how attorneys and accredited representatives can respond to these motions and protect their clients’ interests, particularly in cases that have been administratively closed for many years. This advisory explores those questions and offers strategy considerations when determining how to proceed in each case.
This tool offers a template that practitioners can use to help identify possible asylum eligibility. The screening questions are intended to elicit information about the basis of an asylum claim, identify possible bars and challenges, and flag areas where further follow-up may be needed. Accompanying the screening tool are some notes to help guide practitioners in assessing relief and spotting potential issues.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 confers initial jurisdiction over asylum claims filed by unaccompanied children (UCs) to the asylum office. The Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of M-A-C-O-, along with policy changes implemented during the first Trump administration, sought to strip away this crucial protection from many child asylum seekers. Because of these changes and legal challenges by immigrant youth advocates, the current landscape of initial UC asylum jurisdiction has changed. This practice advisory provides an overview of the current state of UC asylum jurisdiction following the Matter of M-A-C-O- decision and the outcome of the JOP v. DHS litigation. It also offers some arguments and practical tips to help practitioners advocate for their UC clients to receive the statutory protections afforded by the TVPRA, as well as the benefits from the JOP v. DHS litigation.