The latest data from our nation’s Immigration Courts reveals that judges are deciding more asylum cases than ever–and that denial rates are increasing.

The most recent numbers are from March 2025, and show that Immigration Judges adjudicated 10,933 asylum applications, which is the most cases ever decided in a single month. Of those, 76% were denied–another record.

Here, we’ll examine the data and see if we can learn more about what’s going on.

Before we get to that, a word of warning. We need to be cautious about interpreting this new information. The raw numbers don’t necessarily tell the full story, and so what any of this means for an individual case before an individual Immigration Judge (IJ) is not so clear. That said, the general pattern over the last several months shows a clear trend towards more decisions and more denials.

In terms of the volume of decisions, IJs have been deciding more and more cases since the end of the pandemic. From late 2022 until the end of 2024, Immigration Courts were ruling on roughly 6,000 cases per month. The numbers began to spike in January (Mr. Trump took office on January 20) when courts adjudicated 8,050 cases, and increased through February (9,829 cases) to March, when IJs decided a record-breaking 10,933 cases.

With regard to asylum denial rates in court, the current upward trend began well before President Trump took office. In August 2023, IJs denied 45% of asylum case. After that, the number of denials began to climb rapidly and steadily. One year later, in August 2024, IJs were denying 60% of asylum cases, and during the last full month of President Biden’s term, December 2024, judges denied 64% of cases. The first few months of Mr. Trump’s presidency have seen a continuation and perhaps an acceleration of this trend. In February 2025, IJs denied 74% of asylum cases and in March, they denied 76% of cases. 

Looking at these trends, the bigger mystery for me is why so many more cases are being decided in Immigration Court. The number of IJs has not increased since January. On the contrary, a dozen or more judges have been terminated since Mr. Trump took office, and so more judges is not the explanation for more decisions. One prominent commentator, Austin Kocher, states that the Trump Administration “appears to be fast-tracking asylum decisions with the clear goal of clearing the docket by simply denying as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.” Maybe. But I don’t know how the IJs have the time to adjudicate more cases.

While courts decided a record number of cases in March, unless there are much more radical changes, the backlog is not going away any time soon. There are currently more than 2 million immigrants awaiting asylum hearings (and more than 3.6 million cases of all types in Immigration Court). Even if judges could sustain the completion rate from March, it would take more than 15 years to get through all the pending asylum applications, assuming no new cases enter the system.

The more important question for asylum seekers–and perhaps the easier question to answer–is why the percentage of denials has been increasing. I can think of a few reasons.

First, DHS (the prosecutor in Immigration Court) has been more aggressively resisting asylum approvals. In one of my recent cases, for example, the DHS attorney explicitly told me that she could not agree to a grant of asylum, even though she would have agreed during the prior Administration. Thankfully, the IJ approved the case and DHS did not appeal, but in general, when DHS more strongly opposes relief, IJs are more likely to deny. 

A second issue is the CBP-One app (a/k/a the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule). Starting on May 11, 2023, asylum seekers who entered at the U.S.-Mexico border and who did not make an appointment using the CBP-One app are barred from asylum. Though there are some narrow exceptions, many migrants are being denied asylum because they failed to use the app, and I expect this contributes to the higher denial rate in court. 

Another, less pleasant, possibility is that IJs are adjusting their decision-making to please the new boss. To some extent, it is reasonable for judges to follow the lead of the Administration in office, as long as they continue to follow the law. But here, where the Trump Administration has been so aggressive on so many fronts, it seems to me that IJs have a particular responsibility to ensure that asylum seekers receive a fair hearing. Whether judges’ desire to please the current Administration (and protect their jobs) is contributing to the higher denial rates, we really do not know, but I worry that the Administration’s well-publicized efforts to fire people perceived as disloyal may push some IJs to deny more cases. The IJs that I know personally are people of great integrity, and I think they are not particularly susceptible to such intimidation, but when your job and livelihood are on the line, it does create perverse incentives.

Finally, although it would not be reflected in the March data, a recent policy decision (from April 2025) allows IJs to dismiss legally insufficient cases without a hearing, and we can expect this policy to lead to more and faster decisions, and more denials.

While denial rates continues to climb, it is still possible to put together a successful application and it is important not to give up. Gather your evidence, prepare your affidavit, and do your best to present the strongest case possible. In that way, even in these difficult times, it is still possible to win asylum.