How does the Department of Homeland Security influence asylum processing and referrals?
Executive summary
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) exercises multiple levers over asylum processing: operational control through agencies that screen and adjudicate claims (USCIS, CBP, ICE), rulemaking to change eligibility and procedures (for example the Asylum Processing Rule and other final rules), and targeted reviews or pauses in processing tied to security or policy decisions (recently a review of asylum approvals) [1] [2] [3]. Available sources document rule implementation, cohort reporting, fee and process changes, and a November 2025 DHS directive to review asylum approvals made under the prior administration [1] [4] [3].
1. DHS runs the machinery that screens, refers and adjudicates claims
DHS and its components perform the front‑line steps that determine whether a person can pursue asylum in the U.S.: Customs and Border Protection (CBP) conducts initial border encounters and credible fear screenings, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) handles many affirmative asylum filings and interviews, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) manages detention and removals—together shaping who gets referred into merits adjudication or removal streams [2] [5] [1]. DHS’s Asylum Processing Rule (APR) and associated cohort reports describe how DHS and DOJ reorganized expedited removal and merit‑adjudication pathways to accelerate and triage asylum claims after credible‑fear findings [1].
2. Rulemaking changes alter eligibility and process, not just day‑to‑day decisions
DHS writes and enforces rules that can prescreen or bar certain asylum seekers or modify procedures. The APR and other final rules aim to streamline processing for expedited removal cases and shorten adjudication timelines; some more recent “Global Asylum”‑type rules have been described as tightening criteria and making initial screenings harder to pass [1] [6]. Legal and advocacy challenges often follow these rule changes; for example, courts have temporarily stayed some aspects of recent fee or rule implementations, which limits immediate application [7] [2].
3. DHS controls referrals between agencies and into immigration courts
DHS decides when Notices to Appear (NTAs) are issued, whether cases are placed into expedited removal or into affirmative/defensive asylum tracks, and which asylum applications USCIS will accept and process—decisions that determine whether an applicant receives a full merits hearing before an immigration judge [2] [1]. The OHSS cohort reports explain that DHS organizes caseflows by CBP encounter cohorts and deploys Asylum Merits Interviews or referrals to EOIR depending on screening results [1].
4. Administrative tools: fees, intake units and office capacity affect outcomes
Practical levers—like where to file Form I‑589, changes in fee structures, and the opening or staffing of asylum offices—shape access and timing. USCIS guidance sets filing venues and fee requirements; recent federal rulemaking (the HR‑1 reconciliation bill and related Federal Register notices) has introduced new fees and procedural changes that DHS and USCIS have had to implement and litigate [2] [4]. DHS planning documents also show investment in new asylum offices and staffing to change capacity and throughput [5].
5. Security reviews and executive directives can pause or reframe processing
DHS can order broad reviews or temporary halts tied to security concerns or policy shifts. In late November 2025 DHS announced a department‑level review of asylum cases approved under the prior administration and said processing of Afghan‑related immigration requests was stopped pending vetting protocol review—an example of how DHS can suspend processing while it evaluates vetting and security procedures [3] [8] [9]. That review reportedly could touch hundreds of thousands of cases that were approved in a multi‑year window [3].
6. Conflicting perspectives: enforcement versus access and legal pushback
DHS and administration officials frame rule changes and reviews as necessary for national security, fraud prevention, and backlogs; critics—immigration attorneys and advocates—argue that some rules make it harder to clear initial screenings, curtail due process, and may preclude full hearings [6] [1]. Courts and advocacy groups have already put restraints on fee implementations and other changes, producing a patchwork where some DHS policies exist on paper but are stayed or litigated in practice [7] [4].
7. What reporting does not say (limits of available sources)
Available sources do not mention internal DHS criteria for selecting individual cases for review beyond public statements about timeframes and nationality groupings, nor do they provide granular data on how many cases are being moved from one adjudicatory path to another as a direct result of specific rule changes—those data are referenced in cohort reports but not fully detailed in the cited reporting [1] [5]. Also, sources do not give a legal conclusion about the ultimate validity of contested rules; they instead document litigation and stays [7] [6].
8. Bottom line for policy watchers and affected people
DHS shapes asylum outcomes through operational control (screenings, referrals), rulemaking (eligibility/procedure changes), administrative levers (fees, office capacity), and ad hoc decisions (security reviews). These tools can quickly change who gets access to hearings and how fast claims move, and they are frequently contested in court and in public debate—meaning policy can vary between written rules, enforcement practice, and judicial rulings [1] [7] [3].