How does expedited removal work and who is subject to it?

1. What expedited removal is: a fast-track inadmissibility tool

Created by IIRIRA in 1996 and codified at INA §235(b), expedited removal permits DHS to summarily remove “applicants for admission” who are found inadmissible for fraud/misrepresentation or lack of proper entry documents, using an abbreviated administrative procedure rather than full removal proceedings under INA §240 ^{[6] [1] [2]}.

2. Who historically has been subject: arriving aliens and recent border crossers

Historically expedited removal targeted arriving aliens at ports of entry and people encountered within 100 miles of the border who had entered without inspection within 14 days, which allowed CBP to process recent crossers without formal court hearings ^{[4] [1]}. DHS has discretion to designate broader classes of noncitizens who were not admitted or paroled and cannot prove two years’ continuous presence for expedited removal ^[7].

3. Who can now be placed into expedited removal after recent expansions

Administrative notices and Federal Register designations in 2022 and 2025 have expanded or signaled intent to expand the scope, including categories apprehended farther from the border or nationwide classes of noncitizens present less than two years, meaning DHS may apply expedited removal to people arrested anywhere in the U.S. who cannot demonstrate the required continuous presence ^{[5] [8] [9]}.

4. The on-the-ground procedure: encounter, interview, and possible quick removal

An immigration or CBP officer makes an initial inadmissibility finding, records a sworn statement (Form I-867A/B), and may issue an expedited removal order without referral to an immigration judge unless certain claims are made; people asserting lawful permanent residence, prior admission, U.S. citizenship, or fear of return trigger verification or referral steps ^{[3] [1]}. If a person expresses intent to apply for asylum or fear of persecution, they must be referred for a credible fear interview with a USCIS asylum officer, and a positive credible fear finding moves the person out of expedited removal into regular proceedings or withholding-only proceedings ^{[10] [2]}.

5. Protections, burdens of proof, and procedural limits

While DHS must attempt to verify claims of LPR, refugee, asylee, or U.S. citizen status and provide credible-fear screenings, the expedited process places the burden on the noncitizen in many instances—DHS may require affirmative proof of two years’ continuous presence when it designates expanded classes—and the abbreviated nature reduces procedural safeguards such as a judge’s hearing and formal appeal rights prior to removal ^{[3] [5] [7]}.

6. Criticisms, human consequences, and competing narratives

Advocacy groups and legal analysts warn the abbreviated process raises risks of erroneous removals of people who might be eligible for relief (including trafficking survivors or crime witnesses) and point to documented problems in credible-fear screening and officer pressure to withdraw claims, while DHS and proponents argue expansion improves national security, public safety, and administrative efficiency ^{[11] [12] [5] [8]}. Legal challenges and litigation—cited by ACLU and other litigants—reflect tensions over due process and statutory authority when DHS broadens expedited removal ^{[4] [7]}.

7. Why it matters: speed, scale, and stakes

Because expedited removal can result in deportation within days and leave formal court remedies unavailable unless a credible fear or status claim intervenes, its expansion changes who gets quick administrative removal versus who receives full removal hearings—affecting asylum access, family stability, and immigration records that carry reentry bars—so both policy design and on-the-ground implementation determine whether statutory protections actually reach people facing removal ^{[8] [13] [12]}.