The Biden Administration’s Final Rule on Arriving Aliens Seeking Asylum (Part One)

The Biden Administration’s Final Rule on Arriving Aliens Seeking Asylum (Part One)

Legal Sidebari

The Biden Administration’s Final Rule on
Arriving Aliens Seeking Asylum (Part One)
September 21, 2023
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a final rule in May
2023 that would, for at least a two-year period, make some aliens ineligible for asylum if they arrive at
“the southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders” without valid entry documents after having
traveled through another country. The rule was issued in anticipation of increased migration at the U.S.
Southwest border following the termination of a public health order (known as the Title 42 order) issued
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The promulgation of the rule has raised questions as to whether
its asylum limitations violate international treaties and federal statutory requirements. In one case,
plaintiffs argued that the 2023 rule resembles rules issued by DOJ and DHS during the Trump
Administration that were successfully challenged in courts and blocked from implementation. The
agencies have argued that there are important distinctions between the rules that place the 2023 rule on
stronger legal footing. In the ongoing litigation, a federal district court vacated the rule, determining that
it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The Ninth Circuit stayed that decision pending adjudication
of the government’s appeal. As a result, the rule remains in effect. This Legal Sidebar, which examines
the statutory framework governing individuals arriving at the border seeking asylum, as well as the final
rule and prior executive branch policies restricting asylum access, is the first in a two-part series
discussing the 2023 rule. The second Sidebar, focused on the rule’s legal considerations, pending
litigation, and options for Congress, is available here.
Background
Statutory Framework Governing Arriving Aliens Seeking Asylum
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), aliens arriving at designated ports of entry, or who recently entered the
United States between ports of entry, without valid documents are subject to expedited removal. However,
if an alien placed in expedited removal proceedings indicates either an intent to seek asylum or a fear of
returning to a particular country, the alien is referred to an asylum officer for a “credible fear” interview.
This initial interview is not intended to fully assess the alien’s claims, but to determine whether there is a
“significant possibility” the alien could establish eligibility for one of three forms of humanitarian
protection: asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11044
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
Executive Policies That Impact Asylum Seekers at the Borders
Over the years, executive branch officials have taken actions that made it more difficult for certain
arriving aliens to seek asylum in the United States. For instance, under a long-standing 2002 U.S.-Canada
agreement and its implementing rule, non-Canadian nationals arriving at U.S. land ports of entry from
Canada (or who are in transit during removal from Canada) may not pursue asylum and related
protections in the United States (subject to certain exceptions). Instead, they must be returned to Canada
to seek protection there. (The U.S.-Canada agreement similarly applies to non-U.S. national asylum
seekers arriving in Canada from the United States.) In 2022, the United States and Canada agreed to
supplement the agreement by extending its provisions to cover aliens entering either country between
ports of entry on the northern border (including certain bodies of water) who present their claims within
14 days after such crossing. DHS and DOJ issued a final rule to implement this agreement in 2023.
In 2018 and 2019, during the Trump Administration, DHS and DOJ promulgated rules (now rescinded)
that made aliens arriving at the Southwest border, who either entered the United States unlawfully
between ports of entry or failed to seek protection in other countries through which they traveled,
ineligible for asylum. As discussed in other CRS products, these rules faced legal challenges and were
blocked from implementation. Additionally, in 2019, DHS entered into “asylum cooperative agreements”
with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador that allowed DHS to transfer certain arriving asylum seekers
to those countries for consideration of their claims (of these, only the Guatemala agreement was actually
implemented). The Biden Administration later suspended the agreements in 2021. In March 2020, in
response to the COVD-19 pandemic, the Trump Administration, invoking authority under 42 U.S.C.
§ 265, directed immigration officials to expel aliens who lacked visas or other “proper travel documents,”
or who sought to enter the United States unlawfully between ports of entry, to Mexico or their countries
of origin. This policy, sometimes called the Title 42 order, was renewed periodically by both the Trump
and Biden Administrations, but the Biden Administration ended the Title 42 order on May 11, 2023.
Upon announcing the end of the Title 42 order, the Biden Administration announced new border policies
designed to “reduce irregular migration” and create “safe, orderly, and humane” processes at the border.
For example, DHS established processes for eligible Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan
(“CHNV”) nationals to enter and remain in the United States for up to two years through a grant of
parole. To qualify under the CHNV parole program, an alien must have a qualifying sponsor in the United
States, undergo security and health screening, and meet other eligibility criteria. The number of
individuals the United States will accept under the CHNV is 30,000 per month.
DHS also announced greater and “enhanced” use of expedited removal for inadmissible aliens at the
Southwest border. For example, after the termination of the Title 42 order, DHS indicated that, for single
adults placed in expedited removal proceedings, credible fear interviews will take place while the alien is
in DHS custody. The agency also stated that it is “increasing its holding capacity,” scheduling credible
fear interviews within 24 hours, and increasing the number of removal flights per week.
Additionally, DHS announced a “new mechanism” in which aliens of any nationality who are located in
Central or Northern Mexico, and who are seeking to enter the United States, may schedule appointments
for inspection at U.S. ports of entry along the Southwest border using “CBP One,” a mobile application.
DHS further announced a proposed rule that would make some aliens who fail to utilize “established
pathways to lawful migration” and seek protection in a country through which they traveled ineligible for
asylum. Following a notice-and-comment period that ended on March 27, 2023, DHS and DOJ, on May
10, 2023, finalized the rule, and it was effective as of May 11, 2023.

Congressional Research Service
3
The Final Asylum Rule
Under the final rule, aliens entering the United States from Mexico at “the southwest land border or
adjacent coastal borders” (described as “any coastal border at or near the U.S.-Mexico border”) without
valid documents after traveling through a country on the way to the United States (other than country of
citizenship, nationality, or if stateless, last habitual residence) are subject to a “rebuttable presumption”
that they are ineligible for asylum unless they (or a member of their family with whom they are traveling)
meet one of the following exceptions:
1. they were authorized to travel to the United States under a DHS-approved parole process
(e.g., the CHNV parole program);
2. they arrived for inspection at a port of entry at a prescheduled time and place through use
of the CBP One App; or arrived at a port of entry without a prescheduled time and place,
but can show that it was not possible to access or use the app due to language barrier,
illiteracy, significant technical failure, or other ongoing and serious obstacle; or
3. they applied for asylum or other protection in a country through which they had traveled
and received a final decision denying that application (but not including a determination
by the foreign government that the alien abandoned the claim).
The presumption is rebutted if an alien shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that, at the time of
entry, “exceptionally compelling circumstances” warrant an exception to the rule. These circumstances
include cases where the alien (or a member of the alien’s family with whom the alien is traveling) faced
an “acute medical emergency”; faced an “imminent and extreme threat to life or safety” (e.g., imminent
threat of rape, kidnapping, torture, or murder, but not general threats of violence); or met the definition of
“victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” as defined in federal regulations. The presumption is
also rebutted in other exceptionally compelling circumstances as determined by immigration officials,
including if an alien in removal proceedings has an accompanying (or following to join) spouse or child,
and is eligible for withholding of removal or CAT protection and would be granted asylum but for the
presumption. Additionally, unaccompanied children are not subject to the presumption.
The presumption applies to all asylum adjudications (affirmative and defensive) as well as during credible
fear screenings. However, following credible fear interviews, aliens found ineligible for asylum due to the
presumption may be able to pursue withholding of removal and CAT protection during their removal
proceedings if they establish a “reasonable possibility” of persecution or torture if they are returned to
their home country.
Applicability to Credible Fear Screenings
The rule requires asylum officers (AOs) conducting credible fear screenings to determine whether an
asylum seeker is subject to the presumption. If the alien is either not subject to or has rebutted the
presumption, the AO would follow the standard credible fear screening procedures already in place and
consider the alien’s potential eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection under the
“significant possibility” standard. Generally, if the AO concludes that an alien has a credible fear of
persecution or torture, the alien is placed in formal removal proceedings before an immigration judge (IJ)
and may apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection in those proceedings.
If the alien is subject to the presumption of asylum ineligibility and fails to provide a sufficient rebuttal,
the AO would issue a negative credible fear finding based on the alien’s asylum ineligibility and then
determine whether the alien has shown a “reasonable possibility” of persecution or torture (a higher
standard than the “significant possibility” standard) in order to assess potential eligibility for withholding
of removal and CAT protection.

Congressional Research Service
4

If the alien shows a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture, the alien would be placed in formal
removal proceedings before an IJ. During those proceedings, the alien would be able to apply for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT protection, and the IJ would be able to review the applicability of the
presumption to the alien’s asylum application.
If the AO finds that the alien has not shown a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture, the alien is
to have an opportunity to request an IJ’s review of the AO’s negative credible fear finding, including
whether the alien is covered by or has rebutted the presumption. Depending on the outcome of the IJ’s
review, the case would either be returned to DHS for the alien’s removal; or the alien might be transferred
to formal removal proceedings for consideration of asylum, withholding, or CAT protection, including
review of whether the alien is barred from asylum.
Scope and Duration
The rule’s presumption of asylum ineligibility applies to aliens entering the United States, without
authorization, from Mexico “at the southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders” (1) between May
11, 2023, and May 11, 2025; (2) subsequent to the termination of the Title 42 order; and (3) after travel
through a country (other than country of citizenship, nationality, or if stateless, last habitual residence)
that is a party to the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) or
the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Protocol). DHS and DOJ
have requested comments on whether, and the extent to which, the rule should also apply to aliens who
arrive anywhere in the United States by sea.
After May 11, 2025, the rule is to continue to apply to covered aliens during their formal removal
proceedings and in any subsequent asylum applications (but not applications filed after May 11, 2025, by
covered aliens who entered the United States as minors and who apply for asylum as principal
applicants). DHS and DOJ say they intend to review the rule before its scheduled termination date and
decide whether to modify, extend, or maintain the scheduled sunset date.

Author Information

Hillel R. Smith

Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
LSB11044 · VERSION 1 · NEW

Congressional Research Service
5

LSB11044 · VERSION 1 · NEW