What steps must asylum seekers take after using CBP One to preserve a pending claim in immigration court?
Executive summary
After entering the United States using CBP One, asylum seekers who have a pending asylum claim must actively preserve that claim by continuing with the immigration process — that means keeping and responding to filings and notices, maintaining legal representation or contact information with the immigration court and USCIS, and not taking steps that the government treats as abandoning a claim (for example, departing via the CBP Home app) [1] [2] [3].
1. Continue the asylum application process and document its existence
Any asylum application already filed remains a pending application and should be treated as such in immigration court and before USCIS, even if CBP One parole or parole-based work authorization is later terminated; advocates and legal guides stress that those applications “remain valid and you can continue with it” [1]. Legal filings identified by an A-number and Form I-589 remain the central documents to preserve, and asylum seekers should be prepared to show proof of a pending I-589 or other filings if contacted by DHS or EOIR [4] [1].
2. Do not voluntarily depart through CBP Home if the goal is to preserve a pending claim
Departing the United States using the CBP Home app is explicitly linked in DHS guidance to presumptions of abandonment: an alien who leaves while an asylum application is pending “generally will be presumed to have abandoned their application” [2]. The CBP Home program also frames departures as self-removal/execution of removal orders for people with final orders, and the government uses the app to incentivize voluntary departures [2]. This creates a direct legal risk to preserving a pending claim.
3. Explain CBP One parole history in court; it’s relevant to eligibility arguments
Although CBP One is no longer used for entry appointments and the parole policy has been altered or terminated for many beneficiaries, practitioners recommend that entrants explain any use of CBP One during asylum proceedings because that travel history and parole status can affect how regulations like the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways and Securing the Border rules are applied to an individual [3] [5]. Immigration judges and DHS will have records of parole and entry that may be material to eligibility determinations [5] [3].
4. Maintain contact information and respond to notices from USCIS/EOIR
USCIS and the immigration court system send time‑sensitive notices, including fee notices and hearing dates; previously, USCIS began sending notices about a new Annual Asylum Fee to people with pending I-589s, illustrating that administrative requirements continue even amid policy changes [4]. Failing to receive or respond to a notice can result in adverse case outcomes, so keeping addresses and representative contact info current with the court and USCIS is essential [4].
5. Secure legal counsel and use legal services familiar with CBP One fallout
Legal organizations and immigrant defense groups have been documenting systemic problems with CBP One and advising clients on how to proceed; immigration clinics and nonprofits have urged asylum seekers to seek representation or help in explaining CBP One use in proceedings and in navigating changing parole terminations [6] [7] [3]. Given litigation and abrupt policy shifts that produced termination notices, counsel can help preserve claims and challenge improper deportation attempts [8] [1].
6. Expect and prepare for enforcement actions and policy shifts; preserve evidence
The federal government has sent termination notices to CBP One parole beneficiaries and publicly announced endings of parole programs, which has in certain cases led to attempts to remove people who hold only parole-based status [8] [3]. Because policies continue to shift, asylum seekers should preserve evidence of threats, persecution, CBP One appointments, and any prior communications with DHS and counsel to support ongoing claims if removal or enforcement escalates [8] [1].
7. Read competing perspectives and recognize institutional agendas
Advocacy groups argue CBP One was never designed to be the gatekeeper for asylum and that technical limitations and appointment caps have placed asylum seekers at risk [6] [9], while DHS has promoted apps like CBP Home as tools for orderly departures and deterrence of irregular entries [2]. Those differing perspectives reflect both humanitarian concern about access and a policy agenda to control migration flows; understanding both helps contextualize why staying in the legal process and retaining counsel matters [6] [2].