How USCIS Determines Enhanced Security for Asylum Seekers by Country

As of November 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is applying enhanced security procedures to many asylum cases based on detailed security reviews and policy orders from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS leadership. These changes affect how asylum seekers from certain countries are screened, how long their cases stay pending, and how officers decide whether to approve or deny protection in the United States 🇺🇸.

The core idea is simple but strict: before USCIS makes an asylum decision, officers must be confident about a person’s identity, their background, and the reliability of documents issued in their home country. When those checks are harder or nearly impossible, cases from that country can face extra steps, long pauses, or even denial based partly on security concerns.

According to guidance quoted in the source material, USCIS now argues that when it cannot properly assess identity or documents, that problem can affect whether a person “warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.” That phrase matters because asylum is a discretionary form of relief: even if a person fits the legal definition of a refugee, officers may still deny the case if they believe safety or identity concerns remain.

Country‑Specific Risk Designations and Why They Matter

A central tool in this new approach is the use of country‑specific risk designations. USCIS and DHS keep a list of countries they treat as high‑risk for security vetting purposes. As of 2025, the list named in the material includes:

• Afghanistan
• Eritrea
• Libya
• Somalia
• Sudan
• Yemen
• Venezuela

The guidance makes clear that this list also includes “others,” but those are not named in the source text.

These countries are labeled high‑risk for several reasons described in the material:

• No reliable or central authority to issue passports and civil records
• Ongoing conflict or deep political instability
• Known presence of terrorist groups or serious criminal networks
• Limited ability for U.S. agencies to carry out background checks or confirm identities

When a country falls into this group, asylum seekers from that country can face extra hurdles from the very start of the process. Case officers are told to treat identity and background verification as especially difficult, and that assumption shapes every later step in the case.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, these country‑specific risk designations act as a trigger: once DHS and USCIS leadership place a country on the high‑risk list, the system automatically routes many claims from that nationality through tougher screening tracks.

What Enhanced Security Procedures Look Like in Practice

On paper, USCIS calls these steps enhanced vetting protocols. In reality, they change how long cases take, how often they move, and when officers feel safe closing a file with an approval.

For asylum seekers from high‑risk countries, the material describes several added layers of security checks:

• Expanded background checks
  USCIS requests more extensive checks from multiple national security partners, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Defense, and the National Counterterrorism Center. Officers must wait for these partners to complete their reviews before moving forward.

• Biometric and biographic screening
  Applicants provide fingerprints and facial images, which are run through U.S. databases. Names, dates of birth, and other details are checked against law‑enforcement and intelligence records. This is more detailed and repeated more often for high‑risk nationalities.

• Intensive interview scrutiny
  Asylum officers are told to ask more detailed questions about family, work history, places lived, and travel routes. They also probe possible links to extremist groups or criminal organizations, especially in regions where such groups are active.

• Document verification and third‑party checks
  When primary documents from a country are considered unreliable, officers may demand extra records or independent verification. In some situations, they may ask other agencies or international partners to help confirm the truth of a document.

The combined effect is that cases from these countries move more slowly and can be placed on hold for long periods if even one security check remains open.

Policy Directives That Shape Officer Decisions

USCIS leadership has backed these changes with internal policy directives and guidance memos. The source material describes several key instructions to adjudicators:

• Officers may cite the inability to vet or identify an applicant from certain countries as a reason to deny asylum.
• They are directed to pause or delay decisions on asylum cases from high‑risk countries while waiting for enhanced security checks.
• In‑person appointments and final decision entry can be suspended until all background and identity checks are fully cleared.

This means that, in practice, even strong asylum claims can stall if any doubt remains about who the person is or whether their documents are genuine.

USCIS Director Joe Edlow captured the agency’s new posture in a stark public statement:

“USCIS has halted all asylum decisions until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible. The safety of the American people always comes first.”

The statement does two important things. First, it links every asylum decision to maximum‑level security screening, not just routine checks. Second, it frames delays and pauses as necessary trade‑offs for national security, even if they leave asylum seekers in legal limbo for long periods.

Interagency and International Roles in Vetting

USCIS does not act alone when it applies enhanced security procedures. It coordinates with several partners:

• Department of State – brings country expertise, past visa and refugee records, and information from U.S. embassies and consulates.
• Department of Defense and intelligence community – share security and threat information not visible in basic immigration or police databases.
• Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs) – assist with pre‑screening and gathering information for certain refugee and related protection cases.
• International Organization for Migration (IOM) – helps collect data and confirm travel or identity details where local systems are weak.

Because many high‑risk countries lack functioning civil‑record systems, USCIS often leans more heavily on these partners to fill gaps in background checks. When those partners also struggle to obtain reliable data, the result is either a very long delay or a decision that leans toward denial.

Reviews, Rapid Responses, and Event‑Driven Changes

The list of high‑risk countries and the exact vetting steps are reviewed and updated regularly based on new threat information and intelligence assessments.

The source gives a clear example: after a recent shooting in Washington, D.C., USCIS responded by putting an indefinite pause on asylum decisions for applicants from Afghanistan and other high‑risk countries. While details of that incident are not expanded in the text, its effect on case processing is clear: people who already completed interviews or submitted all documents can suddenly see their decisions frozen with no clear end date.

This kind of event‑driven change shows how country‑specific risk designations can shift quickly, leaving thousands of people unsure of when their cases will move again.

For official policy updates and notices, applicants and lawyers can check the USCIS asylum pages on the agency’s website, for example the USCIS Asylum section: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum, which posts current instructions and security‑related updates.

Day‑to‑Day Impact on Asylum Seekers from High‑Risk Countries

For people living through this system, the consequences are concrete and personal. The source material underlines several direct effects that enhanced security procedures can have on asylum seekers:

• Longer processing times
  Extra checks and pauses add months or even years to cases from high‑risk countries. Applicants can remain without stable status or full work options while they wait.

• Increased scrutiny
  People from the listed countries face more intense questioning in interviews and more requests for evidence. They may need to explain small gaps in their stories or travel history in ways that are not demanded of other nationalities.

• Higher risk of denial
  If USCIS decides it cannot fully verify a person’s identity or background, it may deny the application even when the person meets other eligibility conditions for asylum. In other words, the security and identity side of the case can outweigh the danger the person faces if returned.

These outcomes affect not only individual applicants but also their families, who may be waiting abroad or relying on them for support.

Identity, Documents, and the Core Security Concern

The official guidance quoted in the material explains why certain countries attract tougher measures. It states that:

“Certain countries (including but not limited to Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Venezuela) lack a competent or central authority for issuing passports and civil documents among other concerns, which directly relates to USCIS’ ability to meaningfully assess eligibility for benefit requests including identity, and therefore whether an alien warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.”

In plain language, USCIS is saying:

• It doubts the trustworthiness of passports and birth records from these countries.
• That doubt makes it hard to be sure who the person really is.
• Without that certainty, officers feel they cannot safely grant asylum.

This approach places heavy weight on paperwork and security records in countries where war, corruption, or collapsed governments make such records hard to get or to trust. The people most harmed by these gaps are often the same individuals who fled because of those conflicts.

Balancing Humanitarian Goals with Security Demands

The material stresses that these enhanced security procedures are part of a broader effort to balance the humanitarian mission of the U.S. asylum system with the need to protect national security and public safety. That tension runs through each part of the policy:

• On one side, the asylum system is meant to protect people who fear persecution and would face serious harm if returned to their countries.
• On the other side, USCIS leadership and DHS insist that no one should be granted asylum until U.S. agencies have checked every possible security risk and confirmed identity to the “maximum degree possible.”

For asylum seekers from countries under strict country‑specific risk designations, this balance often feels one‑sided. They may fully meet the refugee definition but still see their cases frozen or denied due to unresolved identity doubts, missing records, or security checks that never clearly end.

Lawyers, advocates, and applicants now pay close attention to any change in the high‑risk country list or shifts in security policy, since even a single new incident or memo can change the pace and outcome of cases for entire nationalities almost overnight.

Key takeaway: Enhanced vetting prioritizes identity and security verification — which can protect national safety but also prolong uncertainty and raise the risk of denial for asylum seekers from labeled high‑risk countries.