Original Date Announced

EOIR Acting Director Sirce Owen issued Policy Memorandum ("PM") 25-35, "Statutory Fees Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act." to implement the July 4, 2025 reconciliation bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which made several changes to immigration-related fees. This PM updated PM 21‑10 to reflect new OBBA fee schedules, including a $100 filing fee for asylum application, a $100 annual fee to maintain pending asylum case, and other fees for appeals and motions before EOIR. It also prohibited certain fees from being waived or reduced including the initial asylum application fee, the annual asylum fee, and the TPS fee.

Trump 2.0 [ID #1943]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

EOIR PM 25-36

EOIR Acting Director Sirce Owen issued Policy Memorandum ("PM") 25-36, "Statutory Fees Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act." The PM supersedes and replaces the recently issued PM 25-35, "Statutory Fees Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act," to clarify certain points for adjudicators about changes under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act ("OBBBA"). PM 25-36 explains how EOIR is implementing immediately new immigration fees and making fee waiver changes pursuant to the OBBBA. The memo points out that any EOIR's regulations on fees are superseded by the legislation, and rulemaking will follow.

The memo re-emphasizes the policy that EOIR has a statutory authority to "set fees to ensure full cost recovery." First, there are now new fees implemented or increased by the OBBBA relating to EOIR proceedings and BIA appeals are in addition to other fees authorized by law. This includes the new fee requirement for initial asylum applications and annual fees for each year the application is pending. Second, the OBBBA does not affect the validity of EOIR’s fee waiver request form, and that the guidance contained in PM 21-10 regarding practices for the adjudication of fee waiver requests remains valid. However, certain fees cannot be waived or reduced -- specifically, the initial asylum application fee, the annual asylum fee, and the Temporary Protected Status fee. Third, fees can be increased further, and EOIR will continue to review its fees on at least a biennial basis, if not more frequently, to determine whether any further fee adjustments are warranted. This will include any annual inflation adjustment.

Finally, the PM lists the new fees, effective immediately, that EOIR will charge for applications for relief, protection from removal, appeals, and motions.

In summary, on July 9, 2025, EOIR issued PM 25-35 as guidance that interpreted the OBBA listed fee amounts as being the complete EOIR-related fees, but on July 17, 2025, EOIR issued the subsequent PM 25-36, which adds the OBBA fees to previously existing fee amounts, therefore making them more expensive. The EOIR webpage titled “Types of Appeals, Motions, and Required Fees” and the “EOIR Forms” webpage now also calculate the fees based on the OBBA fee added to existing fees, rather than just the OBBA fee.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.10.03 Complaint - ASAP v. USCIS

The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP) filed a complaint against USCIS and EOIR. The complaint challenges the retroactive and unclear implementation of the new annual asylum fee recently mandated by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), alleging that the retroactive application is not clearly authorized by the OBBBA, that the agencies' guidance is conflicting, and that the agencies failed to provide a mechanism for applicants to pay the required fees. The complaint further alleges that some immigration judges (IJs) are already requiring applicants to have paid the annual fees specified in the guidance.

ASAP seeks relief, inter alia, 1) barring USCIS and EOIR from requiring asylum seekers who filed their applications on or before July 4, 2025 to pay the annual asylum fee while this litigation is pending, 2) setting aside USCIS’s and EOIR’s unlawful interpretations of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), and 3) ordering EOIR to provide clear instructions pursuant to which applicants can pay the annual asylum fee and refrain from penalizing applicants for nonpayment until it gives them notice and a reasonable opportunity to pay.

On October 7, ASAP filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting the court enjoin the agencies from retroactively applying the fee and requiring them to reinstate applications rejected on the basis that applicants had not paid the fees and stay under the Administrative Procedure Act USCIS and EOIR's actions regarding the annual asylum fee. ASAP v. USCIS, No. 1:25-cv-03299 (D. Md).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.10 EOIR - EOIR Payment Portal Frequently Asked Questions

EOIR updated its Frequently Asked Questions to address additional questions about the EOIR Payment Portal and the AAF. The FAQ states that the Annual Asylum Fee (AAF) must be paid by any noncitizen "who had an asylum application pending for one year or more as of July 4, 2025" and that any noncitizen "who filed (or files) a Form I-589 after July 4, 2025, that remains pending for 365 days, must pay the AAF as of the one-year anniversary of that filing date and each year thereafter, for which the application remains pending." The FAQ states that EOIR will issue written or electronic notices to noncitizens when the first AAF is due. The notices will include the fee amount, when and how the fee must be paid, and the consequences of failing to pay.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.10.30 Opinion - ASAP v. USCIS

District Judge Stephanie Gallagher denied ASAP’s motion for a preliminary injunction as to its challenge to the Annual Asylum Fee (AAF) on retroactivity grounds. The court found that the statute does not have retroactive effect, as the triggering event is the application's continued pendency for one year as of a date after enactment. However, the court granted ASAP's motion as to its challenge under the APA. It held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits that USCIS and EOIR acted arbitrarily and capriciously by adopting divergent and inconsistent policies concerning the AAF. Accordingly, the court issued a temporary stay of both the USCIS Federal Register Notice and the EOIR July 17 Memo. ASAP v. USCIS, No. 1:25-cv-03299 (D. Md).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.11 Immigrant Legal Resource Center - HR1 Fees at USCIS and EOIR

According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, EOIR agreed to take "corrective action" for individuals whose asylum claims were dismissed, denied, or pretermitted due to their nonpayment of the AAF. This agreement is due to litigation in ASAP v. USCIS, No. 1:25-cv-03299 (D. Md).

ILRC also reports that on October 29, EOIR issued new guidance that the AAF must be paid by anyone who had an asylum claim pending for one year or more as of October 1, 2025, and by anyone who filed (or files) for asylum after October 1, 2025, that remains pending for 365 days. The change from July 4, 2025, to October 1, 2025, brings EOIR's interpretation of the AAF in line with USCIS's.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.02 EOIR PM 26-01 - Annual Asylum Fee

EOIR issued a policy memorandum (PM) 26-01, rescinding PM 25-36 and re-implementing the Annual Asylum Fee (AAF). In light of the October 30, 2025 preliminary injunction from ASAP v. USCIS, No. 1:25-cv-03299 (D. Md.), the memo states that EOIR will adopt a consistent position with USCIS and waive the AAF for any asylum application that was pending for one year or more between July 5, 2025 and September 30, 2025, and was administratively final. An effort to collect the AAF will be made only for asylum applications pending for one year or more as of October 1, 2025.

Once an applicant’s AAF becomes due, EOIR will not require payment until an immigration judge has set a payment deadline and that deadline has passed. Immigration judges may set deadlines for payment of the AAF according to their discretion.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.17 Motion for TRO and PI - ASAP v. USCIS

ASAP filed an amended complaint challenging EOIR PM 26-01 and a motion for preliminary relief. ASAP alleges that EOIR's AAF policy remains inconsistent with USCIS. For example, it notes that EOIR refused to ensure that applicants receive written notice and at least 30 days to pay the fee, instead urging immigration judges to choose their own ad hoc, case-specific deadlines. As a result, immigration judges have issued varying deadlines to asylum applicants, including some deadlines as short as two days. ASAP argues that the new memo is arbitrary and capricious and that EOIR’s retroactive application exceeds its statutory authority. ASAP v. USCIS, No. 1:25-cv-03299 (D. Md.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.02.02 Opinion - ASAP v. USCIS

District Judge Stephanie Gallagher denied ASAP’s motion for preliminary relief. The court first rejected ASAP's retroactivity claims for the reasons described in a previous October 30, 2025 decision. The court then held that EOIR did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in declining to adopt a 30-day notice period consistent with USCIS's policy, as the inconsistency in notice period does not create material confusion. It further found that the memo does not grant immigration judges undue discretion, and ASAP failed to demonstrate that the memo causes an unlawful denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection due to failure to pay the AAF.

Finally, the court granted the government's motion to lift the October 30, 2025 stay of USCIS's Federal Register Notice, finding that the inconsistencies between USCIS's and EOIR's policies that warranted the stay no longer exist. ASAP v. USCIS, No. 1:25-cv-03299 (D. Md.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**