How does expedited removal work and who is eligible for it?

1. What expedited removal is and its legal basis

Expedited removal was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and is codified at INA § 235(b), authorizing DHS to immediately remove certain aliens judged inadmissible under sections 212(a)(C) (fraud/misrepresentation) or 212(a) (documents/visa) without formal §240 proceedings before an IJ ^[1][2].

2. Who can be placed in expedited removal (statutory categories and DHS designations)

Statutorily, expedited removal applies to arriving aliens at designated ports of entry and—by DHS designation—to “certain other aliens” who were not admitted or paroled and cannot show two years’ continuous presence; DHS has used that authority to extend the procedure to people encountered near borders, and more recently to broader interior populations under published Federal Register notices ^[1][3][5].

3. Typical on‑the‑ground process and who makes decisions

An examining immigration officer (generally CBP or ICE personnel, not an immigration judge) interviews the person, records a sworn statement on Form I‑867AB, and may order removal if the officer determines inadmissibility under the narrow statutory grounds; the abbreviated record is created by the officer rather than a courtroom proceeding ^[4][6].

4. Asylum, credible fear, and limited review rights

Anyone in expedited removal who expresses an intent to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution or torture must be referred for a credible‑fear screening by a USCIS asylum officer; a positive credible‑fear finding moves that person into regular removal proceedings or withholding‑only proceedings where asylum/withholding/CAT claims can be adjudicated, while a negative finding can be administratively reviewed by an IJ ^[7][2][1].

5. Procedural limits, exceptions, and consequences

The expedited process may only be used on specified grounds and officers may not add other inadmissibility charges without referring the person to full removal proceedings, and claimants who demonstrate prior lawful admission, LPR/refugee/asylee status, or U.S. citizenship are supposed to have proceedings terminated or vacated and be transferred to §240 proceedings if appropriate ^[4]. The process can lead to removal orders that carry reentry bars and serious long‑term consequences, and DHS has discretion in designations and burdening a detainee to show continuous presence to avoid expedited removal ^[4][5][8].

6. Recent expansions, criticisms, and safeguards in practice

DHS has, at times, expanded expedited removal’s scope—most recently via notices to apply it more broadly to non‑sea arrivals who lack two years’ continuous presence—prompting legal challenges and advocacy warnings that the abbreviated process increases risks of erroneous removals, may deprive eligible people of full opportunities to pursue relief, and relies heavily on credible‑fear screenings that critics say are inconsistently conducted ^{[5][9][10][11]}. Supporters argue expansions improve enforcement efficiency and public safety as asserted in DHS notices, while opponents and legal analyses raise due‑process and statutory‑authority concerns and document cases where asylum seekers and trafficking survivors have been pressured or inadequately screened ^[5][3][9].

7. Bottom line: who is eligible and the immediate practical reality

Eligibility turns on whether the person is an “arriving” alien or falls into a DHS‑designated class (e.g., recent entrants without inspection or those unable to show two years’ continuous presence) and on the narrow inadmissibility grounds cited by statute; the practical reality is that an immigration officer—subject to notice‑and‑designation rules—can initiate a fast removal with limited procedural protections, though any claim of fear of return triggers a USCIS screening and potential transfer into fuller proceedings ^[1][3][2].