(UNITED STATES) Immigration Judges across the country are continuing to grant asylum in court, even as USCIS has told its own asylum officers to stop issuing asylum decisions indefinitely under a directive quietly rolled out in November 2025. The unusual split between the two arms of the federal immigration system has left asylum seekers confused and afraid, but legal experts say the law is clear: Immigration Judges still have full power to approve asylum applications in removal proceedings, despite the separate pause on USCIS asylum decisions.
What changed at USCIS
According to internal guidance issued in November 2025, USCIS asylum officers were instructed to pause all asylum decisions indefinitely over concerns about vetting and security. The directive, delivered by USCIS Director Joseph Edlow and described as coming at the direction of the Trump administration, applies to affirmative asylum cases — the cases people file directly with USCIS.
Affirmative cases typically involve people who:
– Enter the United States 🇺🇸 on a visa and later apply for asylum, or
– Arrive at the border and submit an application to USCIS.
Those affirmative cases now sit in limbo, potentially for months or years, while the court side of the system continues to operate.
How the courts remain separate and active
Immigration courts are operated by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a separate agency within the Department of Justice — not by USCIS. Within EOIR, Immigration Judges hear defensive asylum claims: cases where people already in removal proceedings ask a judge for protection to avoid deportation.
Key points about EOIR and the courts:
– EOIR has not issued any order stopping Immigration Judges from ruling on asylum.
– Policy memos and recent decisions from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reiterate that judges still have broad discretion to review asylum claims.
– Judges may continue to grant asylum when applicants meet the legal standard.
Two important judicial powers emphasized by EOIR/BIA documents
Lawyers note the internal EOIR and BIA documents underline two crucial powers held by Immigration Judges:
- Immigration Judges may still preterm it asylum applications that are legally weak or clearly fail basic legal grounds.
- Pretermitting means deciding the case cannot proceed to a full trial because it fails on threshold legal issues.
- Immigration Judges retain the authority to grant asylum when an applicant proves a well‑founded fear of persecution.
The practical split: USCIS freeze vs. court decisions
The system is now split:
- People with cases at USCIS face an indefinite freeze.
- People whose cases are before Immigration Judges can still receive final asylum decisions.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, this gap has become a central feature of the current asylum landscape and affects:
– How lawyers advise clients
– How families decide next steps
Consequences:
– USCIS applicants may wait months or years without movement.
– Applicants sent to court — sometimes after prior denials or border encounters — can still obtain full refugee status from an Immigration Judge.
Changing climate and declining grant rates in immigration court
Although judges retain legal power, the environment in immigration courts has become harsher. The overall backlog is growing and political pressure has increased.
Notable data:
– Asylum grant rates in immigration court have dropped from 38.2% in August 2024 to 19.2% in August 2025.
– That is a decline from almost two in five grants to fewer than one in five within a year.
For many applicants, this sharp fall is as frightening as the USCIS freeze.
Staffing turmoil and its effects
Part of the pressure stems from staffing changes inside EOIR. Advocates and court staff describe:
– Mass terminations of Immigration Judges
– Rushed appointments of temporary judges with different professional backgrounds
Some temporary judges reportedly have criminal law or enforcement backgrounds rather than extensive refugee-law experience. Although source materials do not name individual judges, they depict a bench in flux: personnel and policy shifts happening at the same time.
Despite these personnel changes, the underlying legal framework — that Immigration Judges have authority over asylum decisions in removal cases — has not changed.
What the courtroom process still allows
For asylum seekers already in court, proceedings can be life-saving. In front of a judge, applicants can:
– Present testimony
– Call witnesses
– Submit documentary evidence
They may seek protection based on persecution for protected grounds such as:
– Race
– Religion
– Nationality
– Political opinion
– Membership in a particular social group
If the judge determines the applicant meets U.S. asylum law standards, the judge can issue a written order granting asylum, even while USCIS asylum officers are barred from issuing approvals.
The core legal point remains: USCIS’s halt on affirmative asylum decisions does not cancel or reduce the authority of Immigration Judges to grant asylum in removal proceedings.
How lawyers are advising clients now
Attorneys describe having to give mixed messages:
– Explain that affirmative asylum applicants at USCIS are caught in an indefinite pause tied to vetting and security concerns.
– Reassure clients in removal proceedings that hearings remain meaningful and that Immigration Judges still have final authority.
For mixed‑status families — where one member has a USCIS case and another faces an Immigration Judge — this situation can feel both hopeful and deeply unfair.
Government transparency and available information
The government has provided little public detail on how long the USCIS pause will last or the exact vetting changes that prompted it. The pause does not affect EOIR’s separate system.
As the Department of Justice explains, EOIR and its Immigration Judges operate independently from USCIS, even though both apply the same federal asylum laws. Official information on asylum eligibility and procedures remains available, including the agency’s general asylum page at USCIS asylum information, but those written rules now sit alongside an internal pause on final approvals.
Incentives, risks, and the immediate reality
Policy specialists warn the split creates new incentives and risks:
– Some applicants may hope affirmative USCIS cases will eventually be referred to court, where judges can decide.
– Others fear removal proceedings bring added dangers if they lose.
Throughout these uncertainties, the central legal truth is steady: The USCIS pause does not remove Immigration Judges’ authority to grant asylum in removal proceedings.
For now, lawyers, judges, and asylum seekers continue to operate within this divided system. Every hearing where an Immigration Judge listens to testimony and issues a decision demonstrates that the court side is still active — even while the administrative side at USCIS is frozen.
People with pending court cases continue preparing evidence and legal arguments, aware that despite lower grant rates and a tense political climate, the judge in their courtroom still has the power to say yes.
USCIS ordered an indefinite halt to affirmative asylum decisions in November 2025, citing vetting and security concerns. That pause affects applicants who file directly with USCIS, leaving their cases stalled. Separately, EOIR and Immigration Judges continue to hear defensive asylum claims and retain authority to grant asylum in removal proceedings. Court grant rates have fallen from 38.2% to 19.2% between August 2024 and August 2025, and staffing shifts have increased pressure, but judges still accept evidence and can issue asylum grants.
