Trump Targets Asylum Cases with Third-Country Deportations

The Trump administration has launched a broad effort to terminate thousands of pending asylum cases across the United States by arguing that applicants can be removed to countries other than their own, according to internal government data reviewed by CBS News.

Immigration attorneys report that the strategy has accelerated in recent weeks, affecting cases in immigration courts nationwide, including New York, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta, and Texas. The approach involves a procedural tactic that allows the government to block asylum claims before they are ever evaluated on their merits.

How the Strategy Works
Immigration courts are administrative courts overseen by the U.S. Department of Justice, where government attorneys from Immigration and Customs Enforcement represent the federal government.

Under the new approach, ICE attorneys are filing motions known as pretermit motions, asking immigration judges to dismiss asylum applications outright. These motions argue that asylum-seekers should be deported to so-called “third countries” nations that are not the applicant’s country of origin but have agreed to accept deportees under bilateral arrangements with the United States.

Countries cited in these motions include Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, and Uganda.

Internal data obtained by CBS News indicates that, as of early December, ICE attorneys had filed more than 8,000 such motions, effectively attempting to eliminate asylum cases without full hearings.

Legal Basis and Government Position
The administration relies on a provision of immigration law that bars asylum eligibility if an individual can seek protection in another country that has entered into a “safe third country” arrangement with the United States.

In a statement, Department of Homeland Security said the administration is using “every lawful tool available” to reduce the asylum backlog while maintaining legal process, including hearings before immigration judges.

Critics, however, argue that these agreements are being applied far beyond their original intent.

Impact on Individual Asylum Cases
Immigration lawyers report that the policy has affected applicants with strong claims of persecution, including political dissidents, religious minorities, and LGBTQ individuals fleeing countries such as Iran, Nicaragua, and Russia.

In several cases, attorneys were notified just days before scheduled hearings that the government was seeking to deport their clients to countries they had never lived in and had no connection to. This forced defense teams to rapidly shift strategy not only proving fear of persecution in the home country, but also demonstrating danger in the proposed third country.

Some judges have denied the government’s motions, while others have indicated they are constrained by recent legal guidance.

Recent Ruling Intensifies the Practice
In October, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a decision directing immigration judges to rule on third-country deportation motions before considering asylum claims. The ruling also placed the burden on asylum-seekers to prove they would face harm in the third country.

Attorneys warn that this framework significantly weakens due process protections and increases the likelihood that asylum-seekers will abandon their claims out of fear.

Broader Concerns About Due Process
Legal advocates argue that the strategy effectively dismantles access to asylum by turning a complex humanitarian process into a fast-track removal mechanism.

Applicants who have followed all legal requirements appearing in court, filing documents on time, and waiting their turn may now lose their cases without ever presenting their evidence.

Several organizations are challenging the government’s approach in court, including the underlying regulations ICE relies upon to justify third-country deportations.

What This Means Going Forward
If upheld, the administration’s approach could permanently reshape the asylum system, making it far easier for the government to remove individuals without full hearings and far harder for asylum-seekers to obtain protection in the United States.

For immigrants with pending asylum cases, legal representation and early case strategy are more critical than ever.