DHS proposes to further restrict work permits for asylum applicants

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed a regulation aimed at decreasing incentives for individuals to submit fraudulent asylum applications solely to obtain authorization for employment.

Applications for employment authorization related to pending asylum claims have reached unprecedented levels, placing significant strain on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) resources. Many individuals seek to use the asylum process as a pathway to employment authorization.

If implemented, this rule would decrease incentives for submitting frivolous, fraudulent, or otherwise meritless asylum claims by modifying filing and eligibility criteria for individuals seeking employment authorization on the basis of a pending asylum application. The agency would allocate its limited resources more efficiently to review pending asylum cases, including those in the backlog, as well as other outstanding applications and petitions. This adjustment would enable the asylum system to better prioritize those genuinely seeking protection from harm.

Please be advised that this remains a proposal and has not yet been established as a final rule.

The proposal, published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2026, outlines several significant modifications:

Extended waiting period: The minimum period before applying for an initial asylum-based Employment Authorization Document (EAD) would be increased from 180 days to 365 days.

Potential suspension of new EAD applications: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) suggests suspending acceptance of initial asylum EAD applications when the average processing time for affirmative asylum exceeds 180 days --a measure that could result in prolonged pauses if application backlogs persist.

Expanded discretion and more stringent eligibility criteria: The proposal introduces enhanced screening procedures and additional limitations, which may lead to higher denial rates and longer approval times.

As always, I anticipate that this proposal will be challenged in a court of law. So let’s see what happens.

 * * *

A federal judge issued a ruling on Wednesday that deemed a DHS policy --permitting immigration authorities to deport migrants to third countries without prior notice or the opportunity for objection-- unlawful. This decision represents a setback to the administration's efforts to enhance immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts ruled in favor of a group of noncitizens who initiated a class-action lawsuit against the DHS last year. He determined that the Trump administration's third-country removal policy should be vacated. Judge Murphy stayed his decision for 15 days to allow the Trump administration an opportunity to appeal.

According to the policy implemented in March and reaffirmed in July, immigration officers are not required to provide notice or an opportunity for migrants to dispute their removal to third countries, provided that the government has confirmation from those countries that deportees will not face persecution or torture. Third countries refer to nations other than those listed on an immigrant's order of removal.

The White House conveyed its disapproval of Murphy's decision. As a result, a protracted legal dispute is anticipated.