Can immigrants with pending asylum or visa applications be removed from the country during proceedings?
Executive summary
Immigration law allows the government to remove noncitizens even while some applications are pending, but status, process, and discretion vary: asylum applicants placed in removal proceedings face expedited or full removal processes that can lead to removal orders [1] [2], while certain benefit applications (e.g., T or U visas, I-751 removing conditions) do not automatically block execution of a removal order though DHS may exercise discretion to stay removal in some cases [3] [4] [5]. Court and agency backlogs exceed millions of cases, intensifying stakes when removals or administrative decisions occur before benefits are decided [6] [7].
1. How removal can happen during pending asylum claims: legal routes and real-world pressure
Asylum seekers can be placed into expedited removal, credible-fear screening, or standard INA §240 removal proceedings; a positive credible-fear finding sends a case back into full removal proceedings where an immigration judge decides relief, and negative or adverse outcomes can lead to an order of removal while asylum or related claims are unresolved [2] [1]. Policy changes and court-ordered rules — for example the CLP rule and recent federal litigation — have narrowed who can access asylum and increased use of expedited tracks, raising the likelihood some asylum seekers are removed before full merits adjudication [8] [9].
2. Pending non-asylum immigration petitions: no automatic stay on removal absent discretion or statute
Filing an application with USCIS — such as T-nonimmigrant (trafficking) or U-visa petitions, or even certain adjustment filings — does not automatically prohibit DHS from executing a removal order; USCIS approvals can cancel orders after the fact, but until that adjudication or an explicit stay is granted, removal remains legally possible and is a matter of DHS discretion and case-specific practice [3] [10]. ICE guidance shows officials may in practice refrain from removal of known beneficiaries of some victim-based benefits “absent exceptional circumstances,” but the guidance also affirms removal remains a legal possibility depending on circumstances [11].
3. When pending applications can change immigration-court timing or outcome
Immigration judges can pause or administratively close proceedings to allow USCIS to adjudicate certain applications, and DHS may agree to terminate or stay proceedings in specific circumstances (e.g., to permit USCIS to decide a petition); nevertheless those outcomes require agreement or judicial action — they are not automatic protections [3] [12]. In many cases, filings like an I-751 submitted while in proceedings should be considered by USCIS and may forestall adverse action, but defendants cannot assume automatic immunity from removal without explicit stays or terminations [5] [3].
4. Prosecutorial discretion, dismissal vs. termination, and the “deportation trap” allegations
Practice varies: DHS can dismiss or move to dismiss cases (which might enable re-arrest and expedited removal in some reported instances), or ICE may exercise prosecutorial discretion to pause enforcement; reporting and watchdog groups say some court dismissals have been followed by immediate re-apprehensions, producing what advocates call “deportation traps” [7] [13]. The distinction between dismissal and termination matters legally — termination ends proceedings entirely while dismissal may not — and DHS strategy on which cases to pursue is influential in whether a pending application prevents removal [12] [13].
5. Backlogs and numbers that change the practical risk of removal
Millions of asylum and removal cases are pending — USCIS had over 1.4 million affirmative asylum applications pending at the end of 2024 and immigration courts had roughly 3.7–3.8 million open removal cases in early 2025 — creating long waits and administrative strain that can amplify consequences when removals or policy shifts occur while applications await adjudication [6] [7].
6. What advocates and practitioners emphasize for those at risk
Legal practitioners urge clients to insist on counsel at credible-fear interviews, to seek stays or motions to administratively close when filing migrant-benefit petitions, and to pursue prosecutorial-discretion arguments — because whether a pending petition protects someone from removal depends on DHS discretion, EOIR action, and the specific benefit sought [14] [3] [15]. Advocacy groups and legal clinics document that detained or unrepresented migrants face much higher risk of adverse outcomes, including removal, even when claims are pending [6] [7].
7. Limitations of reporting and what the sources do not say
Available sources document statutes, agency policy and reportage on practices, but they do not provide a single, definitive list of which pending petitions always prevent removal in every case; specific outcomes depend on the benefit, whether a stay was requested or granted, DHS prosecutorial choices, and court rulings (not found in current reporting). Sources also discuss recent and evolving rules (e.g., CLP and fee changes) that affect eligibility and process, underscoring rapid policy change [8] [16].
8. Bottom line for people and policymakers
Legally, pending immigration applications do not universally block removal; certain filings can trigger stays, lead agencies to defer removal, or cancel orders if approved, but those protections require statutory hooks, discretionary decisions by DHS or EOIR, or judicial relief — none of which are automatic across the board [3] [4]. Given the scale of backlogs and recent administrative changes reported by USCIS and advocacy outlets, the practical risk of removal while claims are pending is real and must be addressed case-by-case with counsel and timely motions [6] [2].