A new federal rule allows USCIS to send some asylum applicants directly to immigration court without first conducting an asylum interview, marking one of the biggest procedural changes to the affirmative asylum system in decades.
For years, immigrants applying for asylum through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) generally expected one important step before a decision was made: an interview with an asylum officer.
That is changing.
The Department of Homeland Security has issued a new interim final rule that allows USCIS to refer certain affirmative asylum cases directly to immigration court without first conducting an asylum interview.
The change takes effect immediately while the government accepts public comments for 60 days. According to DHS, the goal is to reduce a record-breaking asylum backlog, improve efficiency, and focus interviews on cases where they are considered necessary.
For California, which has one of the nation’s largest immigrant populations and thousands of pending asylum cases, the rule could significantly affect how many people move through the immigration system.
Previously, USCIS generally interviewed nearly every person who filed an affirmative asylum application before deciding whether to approve the case or refer it to an immigration judge.
Under the new rule, USCIS may now review the application, supporting evidence, and government records and decide that some applicants should be referred directly to the Executive Office for Immigration Review without an interview.
The agency is also removing language in federal regulations that referred to a “right” to an asylum interview before referral.
Importantly, the rule does not eliminate interviews for everyone.
USCIS says it will still conduct interviews before granting or denying asylum, and interviews will continue in cases covered by court settlements or other legal requirements.
According to DHS, the rule is intended primarily for cases where USCIS believes an interview is unlikely to change the outcome.
Examples include:
- applicants who filed after the one-year asylum deadline without qualifying for an exception;
- people who are legally barred from receiving asylum;
- cases where USCIS concludes the applicant does not qualify based on the evidence already submitted; and
- applicants the agency believes do not merit asylum as a matter of discretion.
The government estimates approximately 132,000 future asylum applicants each year could potentially be affected.
Officials also estimate that up to 444,724 pending affirmative asylum cases, roughly 31% of the existing backlog, could fall within categories affected by the new rule.
Why DHS says the change is necessary
The government argues that the current asylum system has become overwhelmed.
According to the rule:
- more than 1.4 million affirmative asylum applications were pending at the end of Fiscal Year 2025;
- applicants may wait more than seven years for a decision; and
- interviewing applicants whose cases are likely to be referred anyway consumes limited government resources.
DHS says eliminating interviews in certain cases will allow asylum officers to spend more time on applications that have stronger legal claims while moving non-meritorious cases into immigration court more quickly.
What it means for California immigrants
California has more asylum seekers than almost any other state, with many applicants living in Los Angeles, Orange County, the Inland Empire, the Bay Area and the Central Valley.
For many immigrants, the USCIS interview has been an opportunity to personally explain their experiences, answer questions from an asylum officer and provide additional evidence.
Under the new rule, some applicants may never receive that opportunity before their case is sent to an immigration judge.
Instead, they would present their asylum claim during removal proceedings in immigration court.
That makes submitting a complete and well-documented asylum application even more important from the beginning.
The rule itself encourages applicants to provide all available evidence when filing because an interview may not occur before referral.
Immigration court does not mean automatic denial
One important point is that referral to immigration court is not the same as losing an asylum case.
Applicants referred to immigration court may still apply for:
- asylum;
- withholding of removal; and
- other forms of immigration relief available before an immigration judge.
The immigration judge—not USCIS—makes the final decision in those proceedings.
Why this matters to Latino families
Many Latino immigrants seeking asylum come from countries where they fled political persecution, gang violence, organized crime or other forms of harm.
For families already navigating a complex legal system, the new rule changes expectations about what the asylum process may look like.
Applicants should no longer assume they will automatically receive an interview with USCIS before their case moves to immigration court.
Instead, immigration attorneys say it becomes even more important to:
- submit complete evidence with the initial application;
- carefully document any exceptions to the one-year filing deadline;
- respond promptly to USCIS requests; and
- seek qualified legal advice if their case involves complicated facts.
Because this is an interim final rule, it is already scheduled to take effect while DHS accepts public comments.
The agency could later revise the regulation after reviewing public feedback.
The rule is also likely to face legal scrutiny from immigration advocates, attorneys and organizations that argue asylum interviews provide an important safeguard in the application process.
The new DHS rule does not end asylum interviews.
Instead, it gives USCIS the authority to skip interviews in certain affirmative asylum cases and send those applicants directly to immigration court.
For immigrants in California, the practical takeaway is clear:
The written asylum application may now carry even greater weight because, in some cases, it could be the primary basis for USCIS’ decision to refer a case before the applicant ever speaks with an asylum officer.
