What US agency decides asylum approvals for individuals like Rhamanullah?
Executive summary
U.S. asylum decisions are primarily handled by two distinct bodies: affirmative asylum applications filed inside the U.S. are adjudicated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), while asylum raised defensively in removal proceedings is decided by immigration judges within the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR); both tracks and their caseloads are documented in agency reports [1] [2] [3]. Large backlogs—over 1.4 million affirmative asylum applications pending with USCIS and more than 3.7 million open removal cases in immigration courts—shape how and where an individual like “Rhamanullah” would get a final asylum decision [4].
1. Who actually decides an asylum claim: USCIS or an immigration judge?
If someone files an affirmative asylum application (Form I‑589) while in the United States and not in removal proceedings, USCIS officers conduct interviews and make initial grant or denial decisions; those filings and related data are tracked in USCIS reports and on the I‑589 guidance pages [1] [5]. By contrast, if a person is placed in removal proceedings or expresses asylum claims at a port of entry, those claims can be adjudicated defensively by an immigration judge in EOIR, who issues the final order on asylum as part of removal proceedings [2]. Available sources do not provide a single-name “agency” that always decides every asylum case because jurisdiction depends on the filing context [1] [2].
2. Two pathways, different rules, different risks
Affirmative asylum before USCIS is an administrative path: applicants submit Form I‑589, attend an asylum interview, and USCIS decides whether to grant asylum; USCIS guidance also covers fees and processing details such as employment authorization tied to pending asylum cases [5] [1]. Defensive asylum raised in immigration court is adversarial and bound up with removal proceedings; an immigration judge evaluates the claim, and applicants risk deportation if they lose—this dual system creates divergent legal strategies and outcomes [2].
3. How caseload and policy shifts affect decision-making
USCIS and the immigration courts are operating under extraordinary backlogs and changing policies that influence who gets adjudicated where and how quickly. The American Immigration Council reported 1,446,908 affirmative asylum applications pending with USCIS as of December 31, 2024, and noted over 3.7 million open removal cases in immigration courts as of January 31, 2025—figures that directly affect waiting times, fee policies, and administrative priorities [4]. USCIS and DHS policy changes—like the CLP rule and fee changes—have further altered who is presumed eligible and what applicants must pay while waiting [1] [5].
4. Recent administrative moves that matter to individual cases
In 2025, agencies have issued new rules and internal memos that influence asylum adjudications: USCIS applied presumptive-ineligibility rules for certain entrants and began assessing an Annual Asylum Fee for pending I‑589 filers; parallel executive branch directives have suspended or retooled refugee admissions and ordered reviews of past refugee adjudications—all of which reverberate through asylum policy and agency priorities [1] [5] [6] [7]. These administrative shifts can change procedural steps and the likelihood or timing of a decision for an individual like Rhamanullah [1] [5] [7].
5. Where to look for a specific person’s decision and what limits apply
To know who decided a particular person’s asylum claim, check whether that person filed Form I‑589 with USCIS (affirmative track) or was placed in removal proceedings (immigration court). USCIS publishes data and guidance on asylum filings and EADs; EOIR handles court dockets and decisions but individual case detail may be limited publicly [3] [5] [2]. Available sources do not include a named case for “Rhamanullah,” so they cannot confirm which forum decided that person’s claim—searching USCIS case status tools or EOIR docket records is the next practical step [3] [2].
6. Competing perspectives and hidden incentives
Agency actors and outside observers frame the system differently: USCIS and DHS describe procedural reforms and vetting adjustments as necessary for security and efficiency, while advocacy groups point to massive backlogs and rule changes that restrict access to asylum [1] [4]. Political directives—like White House orders on refugee admissions or USCIS memos reviewing prior approvals—carry implicit agendas (prioritizing security, reducing admissions, or addressing perceived past “expediency”) and directly shape how asylum claims are processed and reviewed [6] [7].
Limitations: This summary relies solely on available reporting and agency materials provided. The sources document who adjudicates asylum in general and recent policy shifts but do not mention a case named “Rhamanullah,” so I cannot state which agency decided that individual’s claim from these materials [3] [4] [1] [5] [2].