This week immigrant rights advocates filed a new federal lawsuit challenging the government’s Mandatory Bars Rule, which imposes additional barriers to protection for people fleeing persecution and torture in their home countries. Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, the National Immigrant Justice Center, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (“CGRS”), and Human Rights First, along with pro bono counsel Crowell & Moring, represent organizational plaintiffs Amica Center, the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project (“FIRRP”), and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (“RAICES”) in the case, along with an individual plaintiff, E.Q., who was barred from asylum under the rule despite having fled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
The new Mandatory Bars Rule, which went into effect on January 17, 2025, significantly undermines the integrity of the U.S. asylum system by imposing additional barriers to protection for people fleeing persecution and torture in their home countries. This rule requires asylum officers to conduct initial fear screenings to assess whether individuals are subject to any of five mandatory bars that would render them ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal.
Previously, due to the legally and factually complex nature of such determinations, these mandatory bars were only considered during a full merits hearing before an immigration judge. At this initial fear screening stage, noncitizens are typically detained, have limited access to relevant evidence, and are usually unrepresented by counsel.
In an effort to halt the Mandatory Bars Rule and protect the due process rights of individuals like E.Q., the immigrants’ rights organizations are suing the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), USCIS Acting Director Kika Scott, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), and EOIR Acting Director Sirce Owen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Peter Alfredson, Senior Attorney in Amica Center’s Immigration Impact Lab, said:
“Just three years ago, the government rejected the notion of applying these bars during fear interviews, making the current reversal both arbitrary and unjustifiable. This blatant disregard for established asylum laws is not only perplexing but also harmful to those desperately seeking safety in the U.S. The Mandatory Bars Rule is an outrageous and illegal attempt by the government to undermine our asylum system and will harm real people seeking refuge in the U.S. from persecution and death,” added Alfredson. “With this lawsuit, we and our partner organizations are holding the government accountable for this flagrant, unacceptable violation of our asylum laws.”
Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), said:
“This rule creates yet another barrier for people exercising their legal right to seek asylum or other protection in the United States. Forcing asylum seekers to present documentary evidence and answer complex legal questions immediately upon their arrival, without any opportunity to consult with counsel, is absurd, inefficient, and dangerous. This rule allows the administration to circumvent due process and accelerate deportations of refugees to countries where they face grave harm, in blatant violation of our laws, and with deadly consequences.”
Laura St. John, Project Legal Director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights, said:
“The Mandatory Bars Rule is a direct attack on the fundamental right to seek asylum, imposing unjust barriers that will lead to the wrongful deportation of those fleeing persecution and violence. By shifting complex legal determinations to rushed, fear-based interviews conducted without legal counsel or sufficient evidence, this rule all but guarantees that vulnerable individuals will be denied a fair chance to seek safety.”
Keren Zwick, Director of Litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center, said:
“This rule flies in the face of U.S. law dictating that complex, nuanced determinations about whether a refugee is barred from asylum must be made by immigration judges after a full hearing. By giving DHS unchecked discretion to make those determinations before noncitizens have an opportunity to seek counsel or gather evidence, it will result in the return of many people—including people victimized by gangs, cartels, and terrorist groups—to danger, torture, and death.”
Javier Hidalgo, Legal Director at RAICES, said:
“If you are looking for a rare example of bipartisan collaboration in the U.S., look no further than the federal government’s systematic gutting of asylum protections across presidential administrations. The New Mandatory Bars Rule is one of many egregious recent actions that make it abundantly clear our elected and appointed officials across party lines will stop at nothing to make our nation’s codified commitment to asylum rights all but inaccessible. So we are left with no choice but to leverage the power of the courts as we endeavor to hold our government accountable to the rule of law.”