How has the expansion of expedited removal since 2025 changed the rate of access to immigration judges and credible-fear screenings?
Executive summary
The 2025 expansion of expedited removal broadened the pool of people who can be deported without an immigration court hearing, formally preserving the statutory right to a credible‑fear screening but in practice narrowing routine access to immigration judges for many noncitizens [1] [2]. Implementation patterns, court findings, and advocacy reporting together show that credible‑fear interviews remain the gateway to judge review but that systemic and operational changes since 2025 have reduced the share of people who actually reach judges and have introduced new procedural choke points [3] [4] [5].
1. What the law says: screening preserved but judge access conditional
By statute and DHS guidance, anyone in expedited removal who expresses fear of return or an intention to apply for asylum should be referred for a credible‑fear interview with a USCIS asylum officer, and a positive screening converts the case into regular removal proceedings where an immigration judge considers the asylum claim [1] [2]. Administrative review exists for negative credible‑fear findings—the individual may seek an immigration‑judge review of that initial adjudication—so the formal architecture continues to tie judge access to the credible‑fear gateway [2] [6].
2. What changed in practice after the 2025 expansion: scale, tactics, and fewer hearings
DHS’s expansion applied expedited removal to people found across the country, not just at ports of entry, and the agency pursued aggressive tactics—including mass dismissals of pending immigration cases followed by immediate arrests—to funnel people into expedited removal and avoid traditional immigration‑court processes, a shift that materially reduced opportunities for in‑court adjudication [5] [7]. Migration Policy reporting documents that credible‑fear interviews can be scheduled rapidly, often by phone, but the large‑scale use of expedited removal transformed a limited fast‑track power into a broad enforcement tool that shrank the proportion of cases that proceed to full immigration‑court hearings [3].
3. The credible‑fear screening: preserved in law, inconsistent in delivery
Multiple sources emphasize that credible‑fear screenings remain the formal safeguard: those expressing fear should get interviews and, if found credible, be placed into proceedings with judge access [1] [3]. But watchdogs and advocacy groups report that in practice not everyone who articulates fear receives a meaningful screening; studies and fact sheets note gaps where credible or reasonable fear screenings are not consistently provided or are rushed in detention settings, undermining the practical rate of referrals to judges [4] [8].
4. Procedural tightness and the narrowing of review windows
Even when credible‑fear interviews occur, the post‑screening review process is compressed: negative determinations can be reviewed by an immigration judge within a short statutory window—“to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days”—but time limits and detention realities make meaningful preparation and counsel access difficult, limiting successful transitions to full hearings [4] [9]. Regulatory changes and related rulemakings also instruct adjudicators to consider statutory bars during screenings, adding legal complexity that can tip narrow screenings against applicants [6].
5. Judicial and litigation signals: courts skeptical, enforcement expanded
Federal litigation challenged the 2025 expansion on due‑process grounds and a D.C. district court at times concluded the expansion likely violated due process because it swept people long inside the country into a fast‑track removal system without typical protections, signaling judicial concern that the expansion reduced access to neutral adjudication [2] [7]. Court records and internal aims—such as reported arrest goals—corroborate a shift toward mass, rapid removals that by design limit immigration‑judge involvement [7] [5].
6. Net effect: credible‑fear preserved formally; access to judges reduced in practice
Taken together, the record shows a clear pattern: statutory and regulatory language still preserves credible‑fear interviews and conditional judge review, but the 2025 expansion’s geographic sweep, enforcement tactics, compressed timelines, inconsistent screening delivery, and strategic courtroom dismissals have reduced the rate at which noncitizens actually reach immigration judges and full asylum adjudication [1] [5] [4] [7]. Data limitations in public reporting prevent precise quantification here—available sources document the direction and mechanisms of change but do not provide a single, authoritative national percentage change in judge access or screening rates [3] [9].