How did suspending CBP One and reinstating 'Remain in Mexico' affect asylum seekers and legal appointments at the border?

1. How the policy shift changed the mechanics of access

Ending CBP One removed the primary tool that allowed asylum seekers to register and secure a timed port-of-entry interview, and the executive actions explicitly canceled appointments for migrants waiting in Mexico, replacing a predictable—but limited—appointment flow with a policy that returns many people to Mexico to await U.S. hearings ^{[1] [2] [6]}. CBP and DHS had previously limited daily CBP One slots to fixed caps—often cited at around 1,450 per day—so even before suspension demand far exceeded capacity and left long backlogs; canceling the app simply eliminated that constrained, orderly intake channel ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Immediate operational effects on legal appointments

Cancelation of CBP One appointments meant that thousands who had been scheduled lost the only guaranteed avenue to a port-of-entry inspection, while CBP and DHS framed the change as restoring “processing controls” and returning people to Mexico to await case steps; Congress’ CRS summary and CBP materials report explicit termination of the app and cancellation of appointments in the executive orders ^{[2] [7]}. NGOs and legal groups warn that these executive decisions further narrow exceptions and screening pathways—already gated by prior asylum bans and interim rules—making it harder for people to get credible-fear screenings or other protections ^{[8] [9]}.

3. Humanitarian consequences in border cities and along transit routes

The practical outcome has been more people stuck in Mexican border cities and transit points, where shelter capacity, protection systems, and local migration agencies are overwhelmed; reporting documented sprawling encampments and increased exposure to kidnapping, extortion, sexual violence, and poor living conditions when asylum seekers are forced to wait in northern Mexican states or transit cities ^{[5] [4]}. Humanitarian groups such as the IRC and USCRI have denounced the reinstatement of Remain in Mexico as creating uncertainty and revisiting harms historically associated with MPP—families and children facing homelessness, violence, and extortion ^{[10] [3]}.

4. Backlogs, wait times, and the narrowing of legal remedies

Even when CBP One existed, appointment wait times reached months in many cases—reports put waits at eight or nine months in some cohorts—so suspending the app did not remove only a safety valve, it eliminated the limited predictability that allowed some asylum seekers to enter lawfully; researchers warned that without expanding appointment capacity or alternative pathways, the backlog and the effective denial of timely asylum screenings would persist ^{[5] [4] [11]}. Legal advocates emphasize that people unable to secure appointments are often left with only limited protections like withholding of removal, which offer fewer rights and no clear pathway to family reunification or permanent status ^[9].

5. Government rationale and counter-arguments from advocates

Officials framing the changes argue suspension and MPP restore border “controls,” reduce irregular crossings, and incentivize lawful processes; CBP historically credited CBP One with increasing orderly processing capacity when used ^{[7] [12]}. Civil-society groups counter that these are policy choices that punish people fleeing persecution, replicate harms of past MPP implementations, and shift responsibility to Mexico and overstretched local shelters—an implicit agenda to deter migration rather than expand safe processing ^{[3] [10]}.

6. What reporting does not resolve and outstanding legal context

Existing sources document canceled appointments, increased waits, encampments, and NGO warnings, but they do not allow precise accounting of every individual appointment canceled or a complete causal map linking each policy change to specific incidents of harm; the asylum bans and related rules are also subject to litigation, and outcomes in court could alter implementation timelines and remedies ^{[2] [8]}. Public data show sharp drops in some encounter metrics after prior asylum restrictions, but disentangling deterrent effects from humanitarian cost and Mexico’s own enforcement actions requires more granular, independently verifiable data than available in these sources ^{[7] [11]}.