Original Date Announced

EOIR/DHS finalize omnibus rule restricting asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT eligibility. The rule implements a wide range of substantive and procedural policy changes, including: limiting qualifying persecution; raising the standard of proof in credible fear adjudications; allowing asylum officers to consider internal relocation and mandatory bars to asylum/withholding at the credible fear stage; expanding the definition of "frivolous" asylum claim and the firm resettlement bar; channeling asylum seekers who pass their credible fear interviews into "asylum-and-withholding-only" proceedings; and more. The executive summary of the final rule notes 17 changes to the NPRM, 13 of which the agency deems "non-substantive" changes to the modified regulatory provisions, and four of which were necessary due to regulatory provisions being "inadvertently changed or deleted" in the NPRM.

The final rule and NPRM was signed by Chad Mizelle, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel, on behalf of Acting DHS Secretary Wolf, and by AG Barr.

[ID #982]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Preliminary Injunction - Jan. 8, 2021

In Pangea Legal Services v. DHS, N.D. Cal. No. 3:20-cv-9253 and Immigration Equality v. DHS, N.D. Cal. No. 3:20-cv-09258, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction enjoining DHS from “implementing, enforcing, or applying" the rule or any related policies or procedures - including the Policy Memorandum entitled Guidance Regarding New Regulations Governing Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal and Credible Fear Reviews issued by the Department of Justice on December 11, 2020.

**Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Correction to Final Rule: Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Review

DHS issues a technical correction to the rule.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Arizona v. Garland Memorandum Ruling (April 16, 2024)

Nineteen states filed a federal lawsuit, Arizona v. Garland, no. 6:22-cv-01130 (W.D. La. Apr. 16, 2024), challenging the Biden administration's IFR modifying the Trump-era policy in this entry. On April 16, 2024, the district court found the Biden administration's IFR illegal but nonetheless dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing. On June 7, 2024, the plaintiff states filed a notice to appeal the dismissal. For updates on the litigation in Arizona v. Garland, see https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63271112/arizona-v-garland/?page=2.

Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.