The U.S. government announced a significant policy shift Monday that could substantially alter the processing of asylum claims and lead to the expedited removal of thousands of applicants. The new rule, issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), eliminates the previous requirement that asylum officers conduct interviews with certain applicants. Instead, these cases will be referred directly to immigration judges for removal proceedings.

USCIS estimates that up to 444,000 cases could be affected by the change. Because a case can involve individuals or entire families, the total number of people impacted may be substantially higher. The agency described the policy adjustment as a measure designed to streamline the asylum process and address a backlog of approximately 1.4 million pending cases.

The interim final rule took effect Tuesday and will be subject to a 60-day public comment period. USCIS Director Joseph Edlow characterized the change as a necessary step to prevent exploitation of the asylum system for means beyond protection claims. “America’s asylum system exists to protect individuals who genuinely fear persecution,” Edlow said, emphasizing that the rule aims to focus resources on legitimate claims rather than system delays or unauthorized work authorization.

However, immigration advocates and policy experts criticized the move, arguing it could leave asylum seekers vulnerable to detention and removal without a proper opportunity to be heard. They also questioned whether the measure would effectively reduce the broader immigration backlog.

Asylum seekers can apply either affirmatively, if they entered the U.S. legally, or defensively, typically after being placed in removal proceedings following illegal entry or undocumented status. Under the prior system, those applying affirmatively would be interviewed by asylum officers in a non-adversarial setting to determine whether their claims warranted referral to an immigration judge. Those referred would then face more formal court hearings, where government attorneys prosecute the cases and asylum seekers generally must proceed without government-appointed legal counsel.

The shift moves a large volume of cases directly into immigration court, a tribunal system housed under the Department of Justice and staffed by federal employees. The Trump administration has replaced more than 100 immigration judges, many of whom were appointed during the Biden administration or had previously defended immigrants, with former prosecutors and military lawyers. This has coincided with a decrease in asylum claim approvals and increased pressure on judges to order removals.

Advocates say recent law enforcement actions, such as arrests at courthouses, have deterred many immigrants from attending their hearings, contributing further to increased removal orders. Meanwhile, immigration courts face a growing backlog of around 3 million cases.

Doris Meissner, director of the U.S. immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute and former head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, criticized the policy for transferring cases from one overburdened agency to another. She noted that asylum cases processed by USCIS typically require less time and resources than those handled in immigration courts, and questioned the administration’s assertion that an asylum officer interview serves as an improper "second chance," since immigration court decisions remain subject to federal appeals. Meissner suggested the change reflects a preference within the administration to reduce grants of asylum overall, potentially at the expense of fairness.

USCIS reported that it had already transferred more than 31,000 cases to immigration courts in the first half of the current fiscal year, on pace to exceed last year’s figure of just over 40,000.

Todd Schulte, president of the immigrant advocacy group FWD.us, linked the rule change to broader restrictive immigration measures enacted by the administration, including the recent termination of temporary protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and others who had been allowed entry after arriving at the U.S. southern border. Schulte described the new policy as a negative indicator for future immigration protections.