(UNITED STATES) — The Trump administration has asked immigration judges to dismiss more than 8,000 asylum cases without hearing them on the merits, pursuing a strategy that would allow deportations to third-party countries instead of waiting for adjudication in U.S. immigration court.
ICE has filed more than 8,000 requests to dismiss asylum cases in immigration court. The filings seek to close cases without decisions on the underlying claims for protection.
Under the new approach, ICE attorneys are asking immigration judges to order asylum-seekers deported to countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, and Uganda, even though those countries are not the applicants’ own.
The push is aimed at sidestepping a core feature of U.S. law governing asylum cases. Under U.S. law, the government cannot deport people with pending asylum cases until their cases are adjudicated and they lose their cases.
By asking immigration judges to nullify many asylum cases without a merits hearing, the administration is arguing that applicants can be removed to other countries and have their cases closed without adjudication.
The effort comes as the administration pursues a broader immigration crackdown that has also reached the government office that handles asylum applications outside immigration court.
On November 28, 2025, USCIS announced it has stopped making any decisions on pending asylum applications. USCIS continues to accept new applications and conduct interviews.
The administration has also halted adjudication of all asylum applications for individuals regardless of nationality, expanding the scope of the pause beyond specific countries or regions.
Together, the court filings and the USCIS decision freeze amount to a two-front squeeze on asylum processing, affecting both people whose claims are heard by immigration judges and those whose applications are handled by USCIS.
In immigration court, the administration’s tactic turns on the idea that cases can be dismissed because an applicant can be deported elsewhere. The third-party countries cited by ICE attorneys include Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, and Uganda.
The administration’s filings ask judges to resolve cases procedurally rather than by evaluating fear-based claims. That shifts the role of immigration judges from deciding asylum cases on their merits to deciding whether the government can close the cases and pursue removal on a separate track.
The strategy also tests the practical boundaries of the rule that protects people with pending asylum cases from deportation before adjudication. The administration’s argument is that dismissal and removal to a third country can substitute for the usual process that ends with a decision on the claim.
The court effort is unfolding alongside another major legal push affecting immigrants already in the system. The Trump administration has reopened more than 100,000 immigrants’ cases.
An NBC News analysis found that more than 117,000 immigrants face potential deportation after the administration requested to reopen their cases. The reopened cases were concentrated in Arizona, California, Florida, and New York.
At least half of the affected immigrants have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade, according to the NBC News analysis. That adds a long-residency dimension to a campaign that also targets newly filed or pending asylum cases.
The administration’s court filings on asylum cases, the USCIS halt on adjudication of pending asylum applications, and the reopening of large numbers of immigrants’ cases are separate actions that point in the same direction: accelerating deportation exposure while slowing or closing off pathways to a decision on protection claims.
In immigration court, the ICE requests seek a quick procedural endpoint. Dismissal would mean the court does not reach a determination on whether an applicant qualifies for asylum.
The reliance on third-party countries is central to that outcome. ICE attorneys have asked judges to order deportations to Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, and Uganda, presenting those destinations as alternatives that would allow the government to close cases without a merits ruling.
The move has immediate implications for how immigration judges manage dockets. Requests to dismiss more than 8,000 cases add a new category of motion practice that asks judges to end cases rather than schedule hearings to decide them.
The approach also reshapes what it means for a case to remain “pending.” Under U.S. law, a pending asylum case ordinarily blocks deportation until adjudication and a loss on the merits, but the administration is attempting to bypass that by ending the case before the court reaches the claim.
Outside immigration court, the USCIS decision affects a different group of applicants. By stopping decisions on pending asylum applications while continuing to accept new filings and conduct interviews, USCIS is maintaining intake and screening steps without issuing grants or denials.
The administration’s halt applies to adjudication of all asylum applications for individuals regardless of nationality. That broad framing distinguishes it from measures tied to particular nationalities or regions.
The scale of the combined actions remains difficult to capture in a single number, because the ICE filings concern more than 8,000 asylum cases in immigration court while the USCIS step addresses pending asylum applications without specifying a count in the announcement.
What is clear is the administration is acting across multiple channels of the immigration system at the same time. One initiative seeks to end asylum cases before immigration judges, another pauses decisions at USCIS, and another reopens existing cases that can place immigrants back into removal proceedings.
The impact of reopening cases has already been mapped by the NBC News analysis, which found more than 117,000 immigrants facing potential deportation after the administration requested to reopen their cases. The largest numbers were in Arizona, California, Florida, and New York.
Longtime U.S. residents are among those affected by the reopening effort, with at least half having lived in the U.S. for more than a decade, according to the NBC News analysis.
In immigration court, the administration’s focus on third-party countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, and Uganda signals a shift in how removals may be pursued for people who have sought asylum. Instead of litigating asylum cases to conclusion, ICE is asking immigration judges to dismiss cases and allow deportation elsewhere.
The combined effect of these policies is to change the terrain for asylum cases at both USCIS and in immigration court, while also broadening the pool of people facing potential deportation through reopened proceedings.
The administration is pursuing a strategy to bypass traditional asylum protections by dismissing court cases and freezing USCIS decisions. By requesting that judges close 8,000 cases based on the possibility of deportation to third countries, the government avoids lengthy merit-based adjudications. This effort, coupled with the reopening of 117,000 older immigration cases, marks a significant shift toward rapid removal of both new arrivals and long-term residents.
