A new Memo from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR, the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts) allows Immigration Judges to “pretermit” (deny) asylum cases without a hearing if the applicant has failed to state a claim for protection. What does this mean? And how can asylum seekers in court protect themselves from having their applications pretermitted?
This post is by Shelby Negosian, a third year student at Washington University in St. Louis, who is studying Environmental Analysis with a double minor in Legal Studies and Geospatial Science. She is interested in environmental tort law, and has a particular interest in environmental justice and immigration.
The intersections between environmental and immigration law are perhaps not immediately apparent, but these intersections are real and ever more prominent under the Trump Administration.
The number of internally and externally displaced people has been increasing exponentially. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) found that there were over 117 million displaced people in 2023. In a single decade, the number of refugees tripled from 11 million in 2013 to 37 million in 2023, and is only expected to increase due to climate change. While climate change–through disaster, hunger, and conflict–is forcibly displacing people, legal systems are not keeping up.
Since he entered politics, our President has denigrated asylum seekers as fraudsters who game the system in an effort to harm hard-working Americans.
Having practiced in this area for more than two decades, my observation is that most asylum seekers have legitimate claims, and in many cases, there is indisputable evidence about the risks they face. That’s not to say that people don’t sometimes exaggerate or even make things up–many asylum seekers come from countries where lying to their governments is necessary for survival–but at least in the cases I have seen, the large majority of applicants have legitimate claims for protection.
But there is another type of fraud in the asylum system. This fraud is more pervasive and more dangerous because it points to wider problems within our government. I am speaking here about the fraud perpetrated by the Asylum Office itself.
The Trump Administration has been targeting pro-Palestinian activists under an obscure provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides, “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.” See INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(1). Under this section, Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, can basically designate any non-citizen for deportation.
Until recently, this provision was rarely used, but now, the Trump Administration seems intent on labeling hundreds of non-citizens–mostly students who have expressed opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza–as people whose presence in the U.S. has “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” thus rendering them deportable.
Here, we’ll discuss INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(1) and some policy implications of its widespread use.