By Richard T. Herman, Immigration Attorney for Over 30 Years – This is an Immigration lawyer’s response to Trump’s State of the Union.
President Trump’s recent State of the Union address was long, combative, and politically calibrated. It leaned heavily into themes of border control, crime, and national threat. It spotlighted individual crimes committed by non-citizens. It invoked disorder. It framed immigration as a central risk to American safety.
In this article, we provide an Immigration lawyer’s response to Trump’s State of the Union, examining the impact of his statements on the immigrant community.
But what it emphasized — and what it omitted — are equally important.
The speech highlighted dramatic anecdotes. It did not highlight national crime data. It stressed enforcement. It did not address enforcement failures. It celebrated economic strength. It did not discuss slowing indicators or long-term demographic pressures. It invoked national security threats. It did not mention controversies that complicate the administration’s credibility.
This article examines:
Policy must be grounded in facts, not fear.
For more, see below as well as our short video.
During the speech, several violent crimes involving non-citizens were highlighted as examples of systemic immigration failure.
Tragedies deserve attention. Victims deserve justice.
But policymaking requires context.
If immigration were a driver of violent crime, areas with larger immigrant populations would consistently have higher crime rates. That is not what peer-reviewed research shows.
A major study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzed Texas conviction data — one of the few state datasets that includes immigration status — and found:
Read the study here:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Study
Independent analysis by the Cato Institute reviewing the same data reached similar conclusions: immigrants are convicted and incarcerated at lower rates than U.S.-born citizens.
Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research similarly found no evidence that immigration increases violent crime nationwide.
National Bureau of Economic Research Paper
The American Immigration Council summarizes decades of research confirming the same pattern.
American Immigration Council Research Summary
The data is consistent across ideological institutions.
Yet crime anecdotes remain politically powerful because they are emotionally vivid. Psychologists call this availability bias: dramatic events feel statistically common even when they are rare.
The speech emphasized threat. It did not emphasize:
Nor did it acknowledge that enforcement errors occur — including wrongful detention of U.S. citizens and lawful residents.
NBC News has reported on cases where U.S. citizens were mistakenly detained by ICE.
NBC News Report on U.S. Citizens Detained by ICE
Aggressive enforcement without precision increases such risks.
The State of the Union praised enforcement intensity.
It did not mention mounting controversies over ICE operations in Minneapolis and surrounding communities.
One of the most consequential outcomes of Trump’s intensified interior immigration enforcement — sometimes called Operation Metro Surge — has been in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Minneapolis, a city already known internationally for the murder of George Floyd, has now become a focal point for debates over federal immigration enforcement, use of force, civil liberties, and community response.
On January 7, 2026, Renée Nicole Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and Minnesota resident, was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis during an enforcement operation. According to reporting, Good was a community member who monitored and documented federal immigration activity and was shot multiple times as she attempted to drive away.
See the historical summary of the killing of Renée Good.
Good’s death, ruled a homicide by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, triggered widespread protests, public outrage, and demands for accountability from local leaders and civil rights advocates. Federal officials characterized the shooting as self-defense, a narrative that was widely challenged by eyewitnesses and analysts.
Good’s case became a flashpoint in the national debate over immigration enforcement and use of force. Multiple cities across the U.S. saw demonstrations in solidarity with Minneapolis in the wake of the shooting.
Anti-ICE protests have been documented across the country, with demonstrators calling for policy change and accountability in federal operations.
On January 24, 2026, Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse and U.S. citizen, was fatally shot in Minneapolis by federal agents during an immigration enforcement operation. According to eyewitness accounts, Pretti was unarmed and at times attempting to help other protesters when federal agents shot him multiple times.
See the killing of Alex Pretti.
Local reporting indicates Pretti was shot during a high-tension encounter between protesters and federal agents, marking the second fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by immigration agents in the city in three weeks. The incident prompted further protests, legal challenges, and local and federal scrutiny.
These two shootings are part of a broader pattern documented by observers: an increase in use-of-force incidents during interior immigration enforcement since the start of Trump’s second term, leading to at least eight deaths associated with immigration enforcement operations in 2026 alone.
See The Week’s running list of ICE deaths and shootings during Trump’s second term.
The fallout has extended beyond monuments and memorials:
Minneapolis has seen large protests and marches to mark the pretti killing.
Minnesota Public Radio coverage.
Supporters have organized mutual aid networks in response to raids and enforcement operations.
Ms. Magazine coverage.
Grassroots protests, strikes, and demonstrations have taken place across the city, with some businesses closing in solidarity.
January 23, 2026 Minnesota protests against ICE.
Benefit concerts, such as one led by musician Brandi Carlile, have raised hundreds of thousands for families affected by enforcement actions.
The Guardian coverage of the benefit concert.
Political figures such as Rep. Ilhan Omar have highlighted traumatized constituents and called for accountability.
New York Post covering the invitation of ICE-impacted Minnesotans to the address.
The Minneapolis cases have become symbols for critics of enforcement tactics and touchpoints in national discourse on law enforcement, civil liberties, and executive power.
The Minneapolis controversies are part of widespread reactions across the U.S. Trump failed to address this in the State of the Union.
Recent polling from sources such as PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say ICE has gone too far in the immigration crackdown and that many believe ICE’s actions have made the country feel less safe.
PBS polling on immigration enforcement.
This indicates a significant segment of the public is uneasy with aggressive enforcement tactics, especially when they intersect with civil liberties and use-of-force concerns.
The killing-linked demonstrations have expanded beyond Minneapolis. The national coverage notes anti-ICE protests in San Francisco, New York, Boston, and Los Angeles, with activists calling for accountability and policy reform.
2026 Anti-ICE protests in the United States.
Local solidarity actions and community organizing have drawn attention to enforcement tactics and their human costs.
In response to enforcement policies and due process concerns, federal judges have criticized aspects of the administration’s tactics. For example, a federal judge accused the administration of “terrorizing immigrants” and violating legal procedures by limiting access to bond hearings and ignoring prior rulings, referencing both Good’s and Pretti’s deaths.
AP News coverage of federal judge ruling.
These judicial interventions reflect broader constitutional concerns about enforcement priorities and respect for legal protections.
The speech did not mention growing public demonstrations across major cities in response to ICE operations and deportation policy.
Public protest is a constitutional right. It is also a political signal.
Polling shows immigration remains one of the most polarizing issues in the country.
Recent national polling from Gallup and Pew Research Center shows Americans are divided on immigration levels but broadly support pathways to legal status for long-term undocumented residents.
Pew Research Center Immigration Data
Enforcement-only messaging does not reflect the full complexity of public opinion.
The speech projected confidence.
Public polling paints a more nuanced picture.
Recent national surveys show approval ratings fluctuating, with immigration policy generating both strong support and strong opposition.
No administration governs in a vacuum. Public sentiment shapes political durability.
Refugees were portrayed as potential vulnerabilities.
That framing ignores the extraordinary rigor of the U.S. refugee admissions process.
According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, refugees undergo:
Processing can take 18–24 months or longer.
USCIS Refugee Processing Overview
Refugees are among the most vetted entrants into the United States.
The speech framed immigration primarily as cost.
It did not reference federal data showing fiscal contribution.
A report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that refugees and asylees generated a net positive fiscal impact between 2005 and 2019.
Refugees work, pay taxes, start businesses, and integrate into American communities.
Immigration was described primarily as a burden.
The data tells a different story.
Nearly half of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children.
American Immigration Council Report
These companies employ millions of Americans.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates undocumented immigrants contribute billions annually in state and local taxes.
The Social Security Trustees Report highlights demographic pressures from an aging population. Immigration helps sustain workforce growth.
Social Security Trustees Report
Without immigration, demographic decline accelerates.
The address painted a picture of economic strength.
It did not address:
Nor did it discuss the economic impact of aggressive deportation policies, which multiple economists warn could:
Economic complexity was reduced to slogans.
The speech also avoided mention of broader controversies that complicate public trust — including renewed scrutiny of figures connected to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
Credibility matters in leadership. When difficult issues are omitted from national addresses, critics argue transparency suffers.
While the State of the Union is not designed as a forum for addressing all controversies, silence on high-profile issues can influence public perception.
At its core, the immigration debate is constitutional — involving equal protection, due process, and the limits of executive power.
The deaths of U.S. citizens, questions about enforcement tactics, and judicial criticism of policy overreach underscore that immigration enforcement cannot be divorced from fundamental legal principles.
Should immigration policy be driven primarily by fear narratives?
Or by empirical data, constitutional safeguards, and long-term national interest?
History shows that every major immigrant wave has faced suspicion:
Over time, integration prevailed.
The State of the Union emphasized crime, legality, enforcement, and the rule of law. It did not address ongoing public scrutiny surrounding allegations of corruption, conflicts of interest, and financial entanglements involving President Trump, his family members, and close associates.
Whether one views these matters as politically motivated or deeply concerning, they remain part of the national governance conversation — and they shape public trust.
Throughout his presidency and beyond, media outlets have reported on concerns regarding the intersection of President Trump’s business holdings and public office.
For example:
The New York Times published a major investigation into Trump’s tax records, reporting that he paid little to no federal income tax in certain years and detailing extensive financial losses and liabilities.
New York Times Investigation on Trump’s Taxes
The Washington Post tracked spending by foreign governments and political groups at Trump-owned properties during his presidency, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Washington Post Report on Foreign Spending at Trump Properties
ProPublica has reported on business dealings and financial relationships tied to Trump-affiliated entities and political influence.
ProPublica Coverage of Trump Business and Political Ties
These investigations did not always result in criminal convictions. However, they fueled sustained public debate about ethical boundaries and presidential financial transparency.
In 2023–2024, New York civil proceedings resulted in findings against the Trump Organization for fraudulent business practices related to asset valuations.
Major outlets covered the decision:
Reuters reported on the New York civil fraud ruling and financial penalties imposed.
Reuters Coverage of New York Civil Fraud Ruling
The Wall Street Journal detailed the court’s findings and financial implications.
Wall Street Journal Coverage of Civil Fraud Case
These were civil, not criminal, proceedings. Still, they represent formal court findings concerning business practices.
The State of the Union did not reference these outcomes.
Media outlets have also reported on financial activities involving family members, including international business ventures and advisory roles.
For example:
The Washington Post reported on foreign investments connected to Trump family ventures.
Washington Post Report on Family International Business Dealings
The New York Times reported on business relationships and international financial ties involving family members.
New York Times Coverage of Kushner Investment Fund
These reports reflect ongoing public scrutiny — not criminal findings in all cases — but they contribute to perceptions of enrichment or conflict of interest.
The State of the Union framed immigration enforcement as a matter of law, order, and accountability.
When an administration emphasizes strict legal compliance for immigrants — including aggressive detention, deportation, and enforcement — it invites comparison with how legal and ethical standards are applied within political leadership.
Public trust in enforcement depends on consistency.
If voters perceive:
Harsh enforcement of immigration violations
Silence regarding alleged financial misconduct or enrichment
Limited discussion of court findings or investigative reporting
then questions of fairness and double standards arise.
Whether one agrees with those perceptions or not, they shape the political climate.
Immigration enforcement requires cooperation:
From local communities
From employers
From schools
From law enforcement partners
Institutional legitimacy depends on trust.
When major corruption allegations or civil findings go unmentioned in national addresses emphasizing rule of law, critics argue that credibility gaps widen.
Supporters may view such matters as politically motivated. Critics may see them as evidence of selective accountability.
Either way, the omission becomes part of the narrative.
Immigration policy does not exist in isolation. It is part of a broader governance framework that includes:
Ethical standards
Financial transparency
Conflict-of-interest rules
Independent oversight
Presidents are not obligated to address every controversy in a State of the Union address. But when themes of legality and accountability dominate the speech, silence on well-publicized allegations can influence public perception.
The strength of democratic institutions depends on the consistent application of law — not selective emphasis.
No. Multiple peer-reviewed studies consistently show that immigrants — including undocumented immigrants — commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens.
A landmark study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzing Texas conviction data found:
Other analyses from the Cato Institute and the National Bureau of Economic Research confirm there is no evidence that immigration increases violent crime.
Individual crimes committed by immigrants do occur — as crimes committed by native-born citizens do — but broad statistical data does not support the claim that immigrants drive crime trends.
Crime stories are emotionally powerful. Political messaging often highlights rare but tragic incidents because they are memorable and generate strong reactions.
Psychologists call this availability bias — dramatic examples can feel common even when they are statistically rare.
Policy, however, should be based on aggregate data, not isolated anecdotes.
Yes. In January 2026, two U.S. citizens — Renée Nicole Good and Alex Jeffrey Pretti — were fatally shot during immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis.
These incidents were widely reported by national and local media outlets and triggered protests, investigations, and calls for accountability.
Federal authorities described the shootings as justified under their policies. Community members and civil rights advocates have challenged those characterizations and raised serious concerns about use-of-force practices.
The deaths became a turning point in the national conversation about immigration enforcement tactics.
Yes. There are documented cases where U.S. citizens have been detained or questioned during immigration enforcement operations due to mistaken identity, database errors, or profiling.
Major media outlets, including NBC News and others, have reported on such cases.
While these incidents are not the majority of enforcement actions, they demonstrate the risks of aggressive, large-scale enforcement without careful safeguards.
ICE detainee deaths have fluctuated over the years. Advocacy organizations and media reports have noted increases in deaths in custody during periods of expanded detention.
Official data from ICE and oversight reports from the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General document deaths in custody, medical neglect allegations, and detention condition concerns.
While exact numbers vary year to year, concerns about detention conditions and medical care have been ongoing across administrations.
Yes. Refugees undergo one of the most rigorous screening processes of any entrants to the United States.
The process includes:
The process can take 18–24 months or longer.
Claims that refugees are admitted without vetting are not supported by official USCIS procedures.
Long-term data indicates that refugees and immigrants contribute significantly to the economy.
A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study found that refugees and asylees generated a net positive fiscal impact between 2005 and 2019.
Immigrants:
Economic impact depends on many factors, but broad claims that immigrants are purely a fiscal drain are not supported by the data.
Immigrants are vital to economic growth.
Nearly half of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. Immigrants fill key roles in healthcare, agriculture, construction, technology, and education.
With declining birth rates and an aging workforce, immigration helps stabilize the labor market and supports programs like Social Security.
State of the Union addresses traditionally focus on policy and national priorities rather than ongoing legal or political controversies.
However, critics argue that when a speech emphasizes law and order, silence on ethics investigations or civil fraud findings may raise questions about consistency in accountability.
Major media outlets have extensively reported on business and financial controversies involving President Trump and his family members. Those issues remain politically debated and legally contested.
No. Polling from Pew Research Center and Gallup shows that Americans hold complex and sometimes contradictory views.
Many Americans support:
At the same time, many also support:
Immigration remains one of the most polarizing issues in American politics.
Effective immigration policy should prioritize:
Fear-based policy can create instability and unintended harm. Evidence-based policy fosters security and growth.
Anyone facing potential immigration enforcement should seek qualified legal counsel immediately.
Early intervention can:
Consulting an experienced immigration attorney is critical when dealing with detention, removal proceedings, or status uncertainty.
President Trump’s State of the Union employed compelling rhetoric and dramatic imagery. But effective policy must be anchored in data, constitutional norms, economic reality, and human dignity.
The evidence is clear:
Immigrants commit crime at lower rates than native-born citizens.
Refugees undergo rigorous vetting and contribute economically.
Immigrants are essential to economic growth and demographic stability.
Aggressive enforcement has led to documented deaths, protests, and constitutional questions.
Public opinion on immigration is complex and not reducible to fear.
Policy grounded in evidence — not anecdote — strengthens democracy and fosters resilience.
For trusted guidance on deportation defense, immigration status issues, work visas, naturalization, or humanitarian relief, consult experienced immigration counsel who understand both the law and the human stakes.
Richard T. Herman is a U.S. immigration attorney and founder of Herman Legal Group, available to journalists for on-the-record quotes, expert interviews, and deadline-driven legal analysis. As an Immigration law expert for journalists, he explains immigration enforcement, detention, visas, green cards, asylum, and immigration court procedures in clear, public-facing language grounded in federal law and official agency guidance. Reporters can contact him directly by email or phone for rapid, accurate commentary on breaking immigration developments.
Media Contact (Direct):
Email: richardtmherman@gmail.com
Call: 1-800-808-4013
Richard T. Herman has practiced U.S. immigration law for more than 30 years and leads Herman Legal Group. He is known for translating complex, fast-moving immigration developments into clear legal explanations that journalists can use on deadline.
For verified background and professional profile details:
Richard Herman is also a co-author of a widely cited book on immigrant entrepreneurship:
Richard T. Herman helps reporters explain what U.S. immigration law actually says, what federal agencies are doing, and what happens next procedurally. He can provide clear commentary on the difference between statutes, agency policy, discretionary enforcement, and real-world outcomes in immigration cases.
Richard T. Herman is a U.S. immigration attorney available for media interviews and commentary.
He explains ICE enforcement, detention, visas, green cards, and immigration court procedure clearly.
He provides deadline-friendly analysis grounded in federal law and primary government sources.
He distinguishes between immigration law, agency policy guidance, and real-world practice.
He helps journalists verify claims using official USCIS, EOIR, DHS, and Federal Register materials.
Immigration outcomes often depend on posture, timing, and documentary record.
Accurate reporting requires separating rumors from enforceable legal authority.
Journalists can contact Richard T. Herman to cover these high-urgency, high-confusion immigration topics with accurate legal framing:
ICE enforcement actions and real-world consequences
Explain what happens after detention events, including procedural next steps and legal posture.
Immigration detention and bond hearings
Clarify bond standards, custody review, and court procedure in practical terms.
Removal defense and immigration court timelines
Explain hearings, relief eligibility, continuances, motions, and realistic outcomes.
Visa cancellations, denials, and inadmissibility issues
Translate technical grounds of inadmissibility into understandable reporting.
Travel risk for visa holders and green card applicants
Explain what increases risk at airports or borders and what documents matter.
USCIS processing delays and case “stall points”
Clarify what delays mean, what notices mean, and what happens next.
RFEs, NOIDs, denials, and re-filing risks
Explain why the government requests evidence and what the stakes are.
Asylum procedure and humanitarian protection basics
Explain the process without oversimplifying legal requirements and posture.
Expedite requests (what USCIS actually allows)
Clarify legal criteria and what evidence is needed to support urgency.
Federal Register changes and immigration rulemaking
Explain the difference between proposed rules, final rules, and guidance.
Primary sources reporters can cite for verification:
A credible immigration source does three things consistently:
1) Identifies the legal authority
Immigration outcomes are governed by federal statutes, regulations, and binding precedent.
2) Separates law from policy
Agency policy guidance may change faster than statutes and does not always equal enforceable law.
3) Explains real-world procedure
What happens next depends on posture, timeline, and which agency is involved.
Reliable references include:
Richard Herman can quickly answer questions like:
What is the legal authority behind this action?
Who has jurisdiction—USCIS, ICE, CBP, or EOIR?
What is the next procedural step after this event?
Who is affected, and who is not?
What facts change risk from low to high?
What primary sources should a reporter cite?
For bond and custody standards, a citable EOIR precedent includes:
Media Contact (Direct):
Email: richardtmherman@gmail.com
Call: 1-800-808-4013
When you reach out, include:
your outlet name
your deadline
the topic you are covering
the exact legal question you need answered
Richard T. Herman is a U.S. immigration attorney and founder of Herman Legal Group. He is available to journalists for interviews and legal commentary on immigration enforcement, visas, asylum, and immigration court procedure.
He can comment on ICE enforcement, detention and bond, immigration court procedure, USCIS case processing, visa denials, travel risks, asylum issues, and federal policy changes affecting immigrant families and employers.
Email richardtmherman@gmail.com or call 1-800-808-4013 for media requests, interviews, or deadline quotes.
Yes. He can explain what is binding law, what is policy guidance, and how the change typically affects real cases, using primary sources such as the USCIS Policy Manual and official agency notices.
Yes. He can explain detention posture, bond hearings, and key legal standards. He can also point reporters to official resources and precedent decisions such as Matter of Guerra.
Yes. He helps journalists confirm details using official sources such as USCIS, EOIR, DHS, and the Federal Register rather than rumors or secondary summaries.
Immigration law stories require careful attention to procedure, jurisdiction, and primary-source verification. When enforcement actions, policy changes, or agency notices move quickly, journalists benefit from expert analysis that separates enforceable authority from speculation. Richard T. Herman is available to provide clear, reliable legal explanations that improve accuracy and public understanding.
Media Contact (Direct):
Email: richardtmherman@gmail.com
Call: 1-800-808-4013
By Richard T. Herman, Immigration Attorney & Analyst
For Herman Legal Group
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine is issuing one of the strongest intra-party warnings of the post-election era: the Trump administration’s decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti threatens to destabilize not only thousands of immigrant families in Springfield, but also the economic backbone of one of Ohio’s fastest-growing cities, contributing to the ongoing Springfield Haitian TPS Crisis.
With TPS scheduled to end for Haitian nationals on February 3, 2026, DeWine recently told reporters the consequences would be “not a good situation.” In a rare break from the MAGA wing of his party, the governor stressed that thousands of Haitian workers remain essential to Springfield’s economic survival.
“We’ve supported the Springfield community before, and we will continue to do so,” DeWine said. “The facts have not changed: Haitian workers have strengthened the city’s economy.”
His comments highlight a widening philosophical rift inside the GOP—between traditional business-oriented conservatives and the MAGA restrictionist bloc, led by Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance.
TPS allows certain nationals to remain and work in the U.S. when their home countries endure extraordinary conditions—civil war, political collapse, earthquakes, or natural disasters. The DHS notice ending Haiti’s TPS designation, released in November 2025, argues the country no longer meets statutory requirements.
But for Springfield, TPS has become more than a humanitarian shield. It is the foundation of:
Local manufacturing and logistics labor supply
Food processing and distribution workforce
Senior-care and healthcare support staffing
Housing market growth
Retail revitalization and entrepreneurship
Studies from Ohio research centers estimate Springfield’s Haitian TPS population contributes hundreds of millions annually in wages, purchasing power, and tax revenue.
As recently as 2024, DeWine warned publicly: “Some of Springfield’s economic progress would go away without them. These Haitians came here to work.”
He reiterated this reality again on Thursday:
“Employers tell me many—maybe most—of these Haitians will no longer be legally employable. And once that happens, you’re going to have a lot of unfilled jobs.”
Springfield’s population has grown more than 20% since 2020, almost entirely due to Haitian arrivals.
This growth transformed the city from a shrinking Rust Belt metro into a Midwestern outlier—one experiencing revival instead of contraction.
Economic growth accompanied this boom:
Rising home values
New Haitian restaurants, shops, logistics firms
Increased school enrollment
Expanded tax revenue
Stabilization of manufacturing shifts previously running understaffed
But the growth also brought pressure:
School districts scrambling for multilingual support
Housing shortages tightening rapidly
Social-service agencies stretched to capacity
Understanding the Springfield Haitian TPS Crisis is crucial for the local economy’s future.
Even so, economists warn that the absence of Haitian workers—rather than their presence—is what would truly push Springfield toward crisis.
DeWine’s remarks illustrate the fracturing political landscape among Republicans.
Pro-business conservatives
These officials prioritize labor supply, economic stability, and demographic growth.
DeWine falls squarely in this camp.
MAGA restrictionists
This faction supports rapid mass deportations and views TPS as a loophole for unauthorized migration.
The clash came to a head in 2024–2025 when Trump and Vice President Vance falsely claimed Haitian immigrants were “stealing and eating people’s pets.”
Local officials debunked the claims, but the misinformation led to bomb threats, school closures, and elevated tensions.
DeWine has repeatedly rejected fear-based narratives, asserting that Haitian immigrants are workers, taxpayers, and community members, not threats.
DeWine confirmed he has received no communication from DHS or ICE on enforcement plans after TPS ends.
The vacuum of information is fueling anxiety.
Denise Williams, president of the Springfield NAACP, expressed deep concern:
“I’m telling people in my family, don’t be on the streets after dark starting now.”
Local advocates fear:
Workplace raids
Aggressive traffic-stop enforcement
Expedited removal orders
Detention without access to counsel
Large-scale family separations
If even half of Springfield’s 12,000–15,000 Haitian TPS holders lose the ability to work, the fallout could include:
Mass job vacancies
Homelessness spikes
School enrollment drops
Municipal budget shortfalls
Multi-family displacements
Increased risk of wrongful detention
Ohio cities have long relied on immigrants to offset industrial decline:
Dayton adopted “Welcome Dayton” after data showed immigrants stabilized housing markets and boosted entrepreneurship.
Columbus revitalized through Somali, Bhutanese, and Latino immigration.
Cleveland, Toledo, and Akron credited refugee resettlement with neighborhood renewal.
Springfield’s Haitian growth mirrors these historic patterns.
Removing thousands of workers almost overnight would replicate the demographic collapse seen in shrinking Indiana and Michigan towns after anti-immigrant crackdowns a decade ago.
The crisis in Springfield cannot be understood in isolation—because Haitian immigrants have become the latest frontline in a broader national narrative engineered by Trump and his senior adviser Stephen Miller.
In the lead-up to the 2026 TPS termination, Miller revived a political script once used against Somalis in Minnesota, calling African immigrants “garbage” and accusing them of “destroying communities.” Those comments did not emerge organically; they are part of a strategic effort to otherize Black immigrants, cast them as culturally incompatible, and frame them as a security threat.
Somali Americans and Haitian immigrants share a key demographic feature that unsettles the political far-right:
They represent young, working-age populations who are revitalizing cities the GOP has struggled to win for decades.
This is why the rhetoric feels familiar:
Minnesotans heard it when Trump said Somalis were “ruining” Minneapolis.
Ohioans heard it when Trump and Vance amplified the false “pet-eating Haitians” narrative.
National audiences hear it every time MAGA leaders describe Black and Brown immigrants as invaders.
This rhetorical pattern is not accidental—it is a political technology:
Identify a Black immigrant population.
Amplify sensationalist, fabricated claims about crime or cultural deviance.
Trigger fear and resentment.
Use the backlash to justify harsh enforcement policies.
For Springfield’s Haitian families, the cost of this rhetoric is not theoretical—it is immediate, material, and dangerous. Their legal status, community reputation, and physical safety hang in the balance of a narrative built not on data, but on political calculus.
DeWine’s pushback is significant because he is contesting not just policy, but the very foundation of the narrative itself.
The infamous false rumors that Haitian immigrants were “eating pets” did not simply appear. They were amplified by powerful national figures, including Trump and J.D. Vance, who elevated the story from fringe social media into prime-time political discourse.
This pattern follows the logic of moral panic engineering:
By the time Springfield police, local journalists, and city officials debunked the pet-eating rumors, the lie had metastasized nationally. Schools were evacuated. Government buildings were shut down. Haitian families became targets of online harassment. Some residents stopped leaving their homes.
The fact that both Trump and Vance repeated these claims—even after they were proven false—reveals the core strategy:
The “cat and dog” panic was not a misunderstanding.
It was a trial balloon for a much larger strategy: to justify mass deportation through cultural fear, not empirical evidence.
And Springfield became the unwitting test case.
Another deeply underreported angle: the Springfield TPS crisis is unfolding at the same time the federal government has deployed—or threatened to deploy—the National Guard in response to protests across several states.
In 2025, state and federal authorities relied increasingly on militarized responses to immigration protests, including:
Mass detentions outside ICE facilities
Curfews in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods
Aggressive crowd control tactics
Surveillance of immigrant advocacy groups
The message is clear: immigration enforcement is no longer limited to the border. It is now a domestic military-adjacent policy tool, especially in communities with large African or Latin American immigrant populations.
If Springfield residents protest TPS terminations or ICE operations, they could quickly find themselves entangled in:
Geofencing warrants
Social media surveillance
Militarized police responses
National Guard mobilization if unrest escalates
This is why Springfield leaders are pleading for federal transparency now—before rumors lead to panic, and panic leads to escalated force.
Springfield isn’t just facing an immigration policy cliff.
It may be sitting at the intersection of immigration enforcement and protest militarization, a convergence that few cities have experienced but many may soon confront.
Behind closed doors, many Republican governors, donors, and strategists privately say what DeWine just hinted at publicly:
Trump’s mass deportation agenda is politically and economically unsustainable.
Several factors make Springfield a potential turning point:
Manufacturers, hospitals, agricultural firms, and construction companies across the Midwest rely heavily on immigrant labor. They fear Springfield is a preview of a devastating labor crisis.
Ohio’s suburbs—once Republican strongholds—are increasingly repelled by inflammatory, racialized immigrant narratives.
DHS did not brief DeWine on TPS enforcement.
They also didn’t brief governors in:
Iowa
Nebraska
Georgia
Tennessee
North Carolina
Many of these governors are asking:
Why should states bear the economic fallout of federal political messaging?
In 2016 and 2020, Republican leaders rallied to Trump quickly.
In 2025, many are quietly resisting:
Texas Republicans are frustrated with federal intervention.
Midwestern governors hate labor shortages.
Business donors are openly panicking.
Evangelical groups are advocating for Haitian humanitarian protections.
This raises a previously unthinkable question:
Is Springfield the beginning of a political moment where GOP leaders challenge Trump’s dominance—not over ideology, but over economic survival?
DeWine may be the first governor to publicly signal concern.
He will not be the last.
Their legal status and work authorization terminate. They become deportable unless they qualify for another pathway such as asylum, cancellation of removal, family sponsorship, or humanitarian relief.
Legally, yes. Operationally, we don’t know. DHS has not briefed Ohio officials, which increases anxiety and unpredictability in Springfield.
Yes. Employers must update I-9s. Continuing to employ someone without authorization risks fines and ICE investigation.
Yes, but the process becomes much riskier if ICE arrests occur before filing. Many should file immediately to protect themselves.
Asylum (given Haiti’s state collapse)
Cancellation of removal
Family-based green cards
Humanitarian parole
Deferred action
Motions to reopen prior cases
No. Leaving without legal advice may trigger 3- or 10-year bars and could permanently block re-entry.
Yes—Congress could pass a Haitian Adjustment Act, similar to what Cubans received.
Do GOP leaders have the political incentive right now?
That’s the deeper question.
Possibly. Historically, TPS terminations have been followed by era-defining enforcement surges (El Salvador 2018, Nicaragua 2001, etc.).
Yes. Black immigrants often face compounded targeting—immigration enforcement layered on top of ordinary racial surveillance.
Past misinformation campaigns—including the now-infamous “pet-eating” hoax—show that local Haitian residents can be targeted not only by ICE, but by vigilantes, trolls, doxxers, and extremists.
Manufacturing
Logistics
Food processing
Senior care
Home health care
Hospitality
Construction
Retail
Local economists estimate that removing TPS workers could create historic labor shortages, reversing Springfield’s entire economic recovery since 2020.
Yes. A sudden population drop of 10,000+ people would deflate rents, home values, and commercial stability.
Yes—midwestern meatpacking towns experienced near-collapse after immigration raids between 2006–2010.
Springfield is on the brink of repeating that cycle.
Because DeWine is a traditional pro-business conservative. His priority is economic stability, not ideological purity.
He also governs a state where immigrant labor is essential.
Yes. A major one:
MAGA wing: prioritizes mass deportation, cultural grievance politics, “border first” strategy.
Traditional GOP: prioritizes business, economic growth, labor supply, tax base, and demographic strategy.
Springfield is now the symbol of that fracture.
Yes. Several governors, state legislators, and business leaders across the Midwest are reportedly worried about:
Workforce collapse
Agricultural labor shortages
Manufacturing disruptions
Political overreach that could alienate moderates and suburban voters
They won’t all say it publicly. DeWine just did.
Many Republican officials believe Trump’s second-term hardline policies—especially mass deportations—could become political liabilities in battleground states and suburban districts.
Some view Trump as:
Overreaching
Unpredictable
Vulnerable to policy backlash
Dependent on Vance and MAGA influencers rather than the traditional GOP machine
This provides an opening for governors like DeWine to differentiate themselves.
Yes. Quietly, strategists in D.C. and state capitals have been exploring alternative narratives:
“Pro-worker immigration reform”
“Business-first legal immigration expansion”
“Stabilization for essential labor industries”
“State rights in immigration impacts”
Springfield is now a test case for how far they can push back without triggering MAGA retaliation.
Almost certainly.
Democrats will frame it as:
“Republicans are destroying local economies.”
Moderate Republicans will argue:
“We cannot deport our workforce.”
MAGA leaders will double down:
“America First means enforcement first.”
This conflict is explosively political.
No. There are three factions:
Hardliners (Miller, Vance, Gaetz): demand rapid deportations & ICE militarization.
Pragmatic nationalists (some governors, senior advisors): want enforcement but fear economic blowback.
Business conservatives: oppose mass deportations entirely.
Springfield exposes these divisions.
Yes. They can argue:
“Mass deportation kills local economies.”
“Immigrants are essential labor.”
“We cannot grow GDP with shrinking populations.”
Ohio’s business community—including manufacturers, chambers, hospitals, and agricultural leaders—has already raised alarms behind the scenes.
Yes. Strategists in that wing believe focusing on Haitians:
Reinforces culture-war narratives
Activates online influencers
Generates viral misinformation
Drives engagement among their base
It’s a political playbook that prioritizes spectacle over policy.
It already has—due to the false “pet-eating” claims that spiraled into bomb threats and national humiliation.
This history shapes every political calculation moving forward.
Yes. Honduras, El Salvador, Venezuela, and Afghanistan TPS holders are watching Springfield closely.
Yes. TPS holders fill roles in:
Food production
Healthcare
Transportation
Construction
Tourism
Manufacturing
Removing them nationally would create a multi-state labor catastrophe.
Possibly. If economic devastation becomes visible—empty factories, closed restaurants, school funding shortages—politicians may recalibrate.
It reveals:
The GOP is no longer a unified anti-immigrant party
The MAGA base does not dictate all Republican policy
Governors may become key counterweights to federal immigration power
Immigrant-heavy midwestern cities are emerging as political bellwethers
Springfield is not just a local story—it is a national stress test for America’s immigration future.
Yes. As more residents obtain green cards and citizenship, they may transform local and statewide electoral coalitions.
Yes. Many small cities in the Midwest will either:
Embrace immigration and grow
or
Reject immigration and shrink
Springfield shows what happens when immigration is allowed to reverse a city’s economic decline—and what happens when it’s suddenly threatened.
Some analysts think so. When economic realities collide with ideological hardlines, political realignments follow.
Trump has reversed positions before. If the political cost becomes too high, his team could:
Delay TPS termination
Redesignate Haiti
Offer humanitarian exceptions
Shift messaging to avoid blame
No one knows—but Springfield may force his hand.
If you or a loved one in Springfield is facing the end of Haitian TPS, do not wait.
The risks—including detention, job loss, and family separation—are real.
For more than 30 years, Herman Legal Group has represented Haitian families and immigrant communities across Ohio with compassion, strategy, and results.
Book a confidential consultation now with Richard T. Herman:
Schedule a Consultation
DHS – Haiti TPS Termination Notice
Department of Homeland Security – TPS Haiti Determination
USCIS – Temporary Protected Status Overview
USCIS: Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
USCIS – Employment Authorization (EAD)
USCIS: Employment Authorization Document
U.S. Department of State – Country Conditions (Haiti)
State Department Country Reports – Haiti
U.S. Census Bureau – Springfield, Ohio Population Data
U.S. Census QuickFacts: Springfield, Ohio
ICE – Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Data
ICE Enforcement & Removal Statistics
Ohio Governor’s Office – Official Statements and Press Briefings
Office of Gov. Mike DeWine
Springfield City Government
City of Springfield – Official Portal
Springfield City Schools (Enrollment, New Arrivals Support)
Springfield City School District
Ohio Department of Job & Family Services (Economic Reports)
ODJFS Labor Market Information
Cleveland.com – Springfield TPS Impact Reporting
Cleveland.com Political & Immigration Coverage
Associated Press – Haitian Misinformation & Bomb Threats
AP Coverage of Springfield Misinformation
New York Times – National TPS & Deportation Policy Coverage
NYT Immigration Reporting
Reuters – Enforcement Trends Under Trump
Reuters Immigration & Enforcement Desk
Washington Post – Haitian Migration & U.S. Policy Analysis
Washington Post: Immigration Section
NPR – Community Impacts of Immigration Crackdowns
NPR Immigration Stories
Migration Policy Institute – TPS & Workforce Economics
MPI: Temporary Protected Status Research
Pew Research Center – Haitian Demographics in U.S.
Pew: Haitian Immigrant Population Trends
Center for American Progress – Economic Value of TPS
CAP TPS Economic Reports
Brookings Institution – Immigration & Regional Revitalization
Brookings: Immigration & Metro Economies
United Nations – Haiti Crisis & Humanitarian Data
UN OCHA Haiti Situation Reports
Springfield NAACP
NAACP Springfield Branch
Haitian Bridge Alliance
HBA: Haitian Advocacy & Legal Support
American Civil Liberties Union (Ohio)
ACLU Ohio: Immigrant Rights
National Immigration Law Center – TPS & Work Rights
NILC TPS Resources
Catholic Charities Migration Services (Ohio)
Catholic Charities – Immigration Legal Services
Ohio Chamber of Commerce – Workforce Shortage Reports
Ohio Chamber Economic Research
Bureau of Labor Statistics – Ohio Employment Trends
BLS State and Metro Area Employment
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland – Regional Economics
Cleveland Fed Research – Labor & Demographics
University of Dayton – Migration & Midwest Revitalization Studies
UD Research Initiatives
Library of Congress – Migration History Resources
LOC Immigration Collections
National Archives – TPS Legislative History
NARA Immigration Records
Scholarly Work on Midwestern Immigration Patterns
JSTOR: Rust Belt Immigration Revitalization Studies
Breaking news: The federal government has announced a nationwide freeze on issuing asylum decisions after the fatal shooting of two U.S. National Guardsmen, one of whom died, allegedly committed by an Afghan immigrant who recently obtained asylum through USCIS.
This guide explains what the asylum suspension 2025 means, who is affected, and what asylum-seekers must do now to protect their rights, work authorization, and future status.
The federal government has paused all pending asylum decisions until a formal review of security procedures is completed.
Applications are still being accepted, biometrics continue, and asylum interviews may still be scheduled, but no final approvals will be issued.
This pause does not end asylum, but extends timelines for decisions, work authorization, and family reunification.
Time-sensitive asylum deadlines such as the one-year filing deadline still apply, regardless of the freeze.
According to multiple reports, an Afghan immigrant who had recently received asylum through USCIS shot two active-duty National Guardsmen, killing one. Media coverage includes sources such as:
Shortly after, President Trump stated publicly that “all pending asylum cases are on hold” pending a full internal security review of USCIS and DHS vetting procedures.
Coverage appeared in:
Bottom line:
The pause is national, applies to both affirmative and defensive asylum, and there is no published end date.
Filed with USCIS using Form I-589
Interviews may still occur.
No final grant approvals until suspension lifted.
Filed in immigration court (EOIR)
Hearings continue.
Judges may reserve decisions rather than issue grants.
Filed under expedited removal
Credible fear interviews continue, but asylum conversion to “full grant” likely delayed.
No derivative grants under INA § 208(b)(3) until the freeze ends.
EAD applications based on pending asylum can still be granted at the 150/180 day asylum “clock” mark.
This is critical:
The freeze applies to final adjudication, not processing as a whole.
According to history of similar pauses (e.g., 2018 “extreme vetting review”):
Filing is still available
👉 see USCIS I-589 Filing Instructions
Biometrics are still required
👉 see USCIS Biometrics Overview
EAD clock continues
👉 see USCIS Asylum EAD Eligibility
Interviews may still be scheduled
👉 see USCIS Asylum Division Updates
The government is reviewing vetting protocols, not canceling asylum as a legal framework.
Under INA § 208(a)(2)(B)
Still enforced
Missing it can permanently bar asylum eligibility
150/180-day rule stays in effect:
Apply using Form I-765
Use category c)(8) for asylum pending EAD
Immigration judges still control calendars, even if decisions are delayed.
Corroborating evidence required
Country condition documentation still critical
👉 see EOIR Policy Manual
The freeze stops decisions — not preparation.
Use most recent available data:
1,080,000+ pending asylum cases in the U.S.
👉 TRAC Immigration Data
380,000+ affirmative cases at USCIS
👉 DHS Annual Flow Report
700,000+ defensive cases in EOIR courts
Venezuela
Guatemala
Honduras
Cuba
Afghanistan
China
India
32–60 months USCIS
2–7 years immigration court
The nationwide pause adds unknown months or years to these timelines.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) (power to suspend entry of foreign nationals)
8 U.S.C. § 215(a) (control over movement of immigrants)
Asylum is guaranteed by statute:
INA § 208 — asylum eligibility
Refugee Act of 1980
United Nations Protocol
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump
Multiple injunctions limiting blanket asylum bans.
Groups likely to sue include:
Bottom line:
The President can slow asylum but not abolish or categorically freeze it indefinitely without court intervention.
Even during a freeze, asylum seekers:
✔️ Can file Form I-589
✔️ Can request EAD after 150/180 days
✔️ Can retain legal counsel
✔️ Can submit evidence packets
✔️ Cannot be deported while asylum claim pending (except in limited statutory removals)
You still have due process rights under federal law.
This is the #1 recommendation from immigration lawyers:
Filing locks in legal rights
Stops unlawful presence consequences
Gather:
Personal declarations
Affidavits
Country reports
Medical records
Police certifications
Expert testimony
Use online calculators through:
Professionals can:
Request expedited proceedings
Seek mandamus lawsuits if EAD delayed
File administrative motions
Yes. Filing is not blocked.
Yes. Biometrics appointments continue.
Not necessarily — interviews may continue, but no final approvals will be issued.
Yes. Missing the deadline is catastrophic.
Yes. Only approvals are paused.
Yes. Asylum EAD eligibility is based on pending status.
Only if you cause delay — get counsel to avoid this.
Generally no, unless statutory bars apply.
Unclear — but most final grants may be delayed.
Yes, but derivative approval will be delayed.
No — never travel when asylum pending without legal advice.
No end date announced.
Almost certainly — by ACLU, AILA, and state AGs.
Possibly — depends on judge and DHS counsel.
Case-specific — ask an attorney.
Highly risky — consult counsel.
Yes — asylum freeze does not affect TPS programs.
Could stop your asylum clock — get legal advice.
Yes, but file AR-11 to avoid losing notices.
Yes. Defensive asylum cases may continue.
There is no mass denial policy announced.
Yes. FOIA requests are recommended.
Yes — attorneys file mandamus lawsuits regularly.
Yes. Representation dramatically improves asylum outcomes.
Book a confidential consultation now and get a plan.
🚨 If your asylum case is pending, the freeze is dangerous, but manageable with preparation.
The worst mistake is to wait and hope things resume independently.
👉 Get legal advice
👉 Protect your asylum clock
👉 Plan evidence strategy
👉 Review risk of travel, address changes, or interview requests
Richard T. Herman, Esq. has represented asylum applicants from over 120 countries for more than 30 years.
✔️ Nationwide representation
✔️ Virtual consultations
✔️ Emergency filing available
Schedule a confidential review today
By Richard T. Herman, Immigration Attorney – Herman Legal Group, Cleveland & Columbus OH
Thousands of immigrants who once believed their removal cases were over are now receiving new hearing notices from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Many of these individuals are unaware that their cases are being reopened, often after years of inactivity. This is part of a DHS policy shift to revive administratively closed cases, potentially affecting as many as 400,000 individuals nationwide. The government is actively working to bring thousands of previously closed immigration cases back to court, posing a risk of deportation.
These reopened cases reflect a 2025 EOIR / Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiative to revive dormant dockets under the Project 2025 Immigration Enforcement Agenda.
Expert Insight – Richard T. Herman:
“A reopened case isn’t always deportation — but if you ignore a notice or fail to update your address, you risk a removal order and even ICE detention.”
Administrative closure lets an immigration judge (IJ) pause a case without issuing a final order.
The authority is defined in the EOIR Policy Manual § 5.9 – Administrative Closure and reaffirmed in Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021), which restored IJs’ discretion after Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).
By contrast, termination under 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(c) ends proceedings permanently.
A 2025 EOIR directive ordered judges to review administratively closed cases for recalendaring under the Trump-Vance enforcement agenda. This policy shift by DHS aims to revive as many as 400,000 administratively closed cases nationwide. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is reviving these cases as part of a nationwide policy initiative. DHS’s decision to reopen old cases is seen as a move to address an unmanageable court backlog.
Timeline
👉 See EOIR News & Policy Updates and DHS Press Releases for official notices.
Look for a new Notice of Hearing (NO H), Form I-830, an alert in the EOIR Electronic Case Access System (ECAS), or contact from your attorney. Many individuals with reopened cases may not receive timely notice of their new court dates due to outdated contact information. This lack of timely notice can significantly impact their ability to prepare for hearings. It is crucial to ensure that the court has your updated contact information to avoid missing critical notifications.
✅ Check your case status
At the Master Calendar Hearing the judge confirms identity and charges, sets deadlines, and warns of in absentia orders for no-shows. If a case is recalendared, individuals are placed back into active removal proceedings and must prepare for potential hearing dates.
“Reopening terrifies families who’ve lived here for years — but quick legal action can turn a setback into a second chance.” — Richard T. Herman
Relief may include VAWA Protection, U Visas, or Cancellation for Non-LPRs.
| Law Firm | Cities | Focus | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herman Legal Group | Cleveland · Columbus · Akron · Cincinnati | Removal defense & family immigration | lawfirm4immigrants.com |
| Sarmiento Immigration Law Firm | Cleveland | Waivers & deportation defense | sarmientoimmigration.com |
| Margaret Wong & Associates | Cleveland · Columbus | Asylum & litigation | imwong.com |
| Joslyn Law Firm | Columbus | Crimmigration defense | criminalattorneycolumbus.com |
| Robert Brown LLC | Columbus · Cincinnati | Employment & removal cases | brownimmigrationlaw.com |
EOIR and ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) are re-calendaring hundreds of thousands of cases.
👉 See ICE ERO Reports and EOIR Policy Updates.
Visit the EOIR Automated Case Information System or call 1-800-898-7180.
If your record shows a “Scheduled” or “Pending” hearing, your case has been reactivated.
If it says “Closed”, the case is still inactive—but you should recheck weekly during 2025 as EOIR continues its docket reviews.
Check both the EOIR portal and hotline above, and contact your attorney.
If the court sent a notice to an old address and you didn’t update via Form EOIR-33, the judge can still issue an in absentia removal order under INA § 240(b)(5).
You can later file a motion to reopen showing lack of notice, but you’ll need proof of your current address (lease, utility bills, or USPS confirmation). It is vital to update your address with the immigration court after a case has been reopened to ensure you receive future notices.
Until a new EOIR-28 is filed, the court still sends notices to the old attorney.
You must file a new EOIR-28 immediately to ensure proper communication and representation.
Keep copies and postal proof of submission.
You must submit Form EOIR-33 – Change of Address within five days of moving.
If EOIR mailed your hearing notice to your previous address, you are still legally responsible unless you filed EOIR-33.
Failing to do so risks a removal order and an ICE arrest warrant.
Under INA § 240(b)(5), if you miss a scheduled hearing after receiving proper notice, the judge can issue an order without you present.
ICE may detain you at any time after that.
If you never received notice or were in serious emergency circumstances, you may file a motion to reopen.
Submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request through EOIR’s portal.
Ask for your Record of Proceedings (ROP), which includes all filings, transcripts, and prior decisions.
Processing usually takes 2–4 months.
Yes. If you have a prior removal order, criminal history, or pending ICE supervision, you can be detained under ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) authority.
Consult your attorney about filing for bond or parole.
Sometimes. You or your attorney may file for prosecutorial discretion (PD) under the Mayorkas Memo (2021) or a motion for administrative closure citing Matter of Cruz-Valdez (2021).
If your case is now under EOIR jurisdiction, USCIS may pause your adjustment (Form I-485) or waiver (Form I-601A) until the immigration judge rules.
Your lawyer can file a motion to terminate proceedings so USCIS can continue adjudication.
Yes. A valid marriage to a U.S. citizen may make you eligible to adjust status.
Your lawyer can request termination of removal so you can complete the process through USCIS Adjustment of Status.
The notice lists the court’s name and address.
You can also look it up by A-Number using the EOIR portal.
To locate directions, see EOIR’s Immigration Court Directory.
During the Master Calendar Hearing:
You must still attend your EOIR hearing.
These statuses don’t automatically close removal proceedings, but they may provide defenses or eligibility for relief.
Verify details with USCIS TPS Guidance or DACA Information.
If you departed under advance parole or without permission, you could face inadmissibility issues under INA § 212(a)(9).
Contact a lawyer immediately before re-entry or consular processing.
Yes. You have 30 days to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
If denied there, you can seek review in the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals.
If you still fear persecution and your original asylum was denied or withdrawn, you may reapply if circumstances changed.
Submit an updated Form I-589 with new evidence before your next hearing.
See USCIS Asylum Guidance. Additionally, individuals may become eligible for a form of relief, such as a green card based on a family member, that was not previously available.
Timelines vary widely.
Master Calendar hearings may occur within 1–4 months, while individual hearings can take 6–24 months, depending on the court’s backlog and relief applications.
| Resource | Purpose | Official Link |
|---|---|---|
| EOIR Case Portal | Check case status | acis.eoir.justice.gov/en |
| EOIR Hotline | Automated phone status | 1-800-898-7180 |
| Form EOIR-33 | Change of Address | justice.gov/eoir/eoir-33 |
| Form EOIR-28 | Attorney Appearance | justice.gov/eoir/eoir-forms |
| EOIR FOIA Portal | Get case records | foia.eoir.justice.gov/foiarequest |
| ICE ERO Directory | Detention info | ice.gov/ero |
| DHS Newsroom | Policy updates | dhs.gov/news |
| USCIS Green Card Guide | Adjustment process | uscis.gov/green-card |
| Herman Legal Group | Ohio law firm | lawfirm4immigrants.com |
Federal Regulations
INA Provisions
Attorney General & EOIR Decisions
Supreme Court Cases
EOIR Policy & Guidance
DHS Guidance
Forms & Procedures
This past week, Trump’s administration has made a major push in decreasing the flow of migrants to the US by implementing strict policy changes for asylum seekers targeted at the southern border. The new rule requires that if an immigrant seeking asylum first crosses through a third country prior to reaching the US, he/she must first apply for refugee status in that country.
An alien who enters or attempts to enter the US across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited en route to the US is ineligible for asylum.
Southern Border
This policy shift specifically affects Central American migrants — the largest population of asylum seekers—and places a heavy burden on passing-through countries such as Mexico and Guatemala. One primary reason for the political modification is that current asylum rules are largely abused.
The US immigration courts become backlogged with high volumes of asylum cases and, in return, very few applicants are granted asylum status. This is heavily due to applicants unable to meet the strict standard of proving qualifications for asylum, e.g. genuine fear of persecution if returned to their home country based on certain circumstances.
The new restriction has gained mass attention for its effect on US immigration. Some favor Trump’s initiative to limit the flow of migrants, and some government officials believe the policy will prevent the act of asylum shopping.
On the other hand, migrant advocacy groups and organizations such as the ACLU have already filed lawsuits against the Trump administration. The central argument of the complaints assert that the asylum rule violates international law and the US Constitution, while putting vulnerable lives at risk by limiting their opportunity for protection.
U.S. Customs And Border Protection Agency Holding Detained Migrants Under Bridge In El Paso
There are few exceptions to the policy which allow one to apply for US asylum once crossing the US-Mexico border. One exception is if a migrant demonstrates that he/she applied for asylum in one of the countries of which the migrant transited en route to the US and received a final judgment of denial from such country.
However, one circumstance to keep in mind is the commonality of asylum cases taking months to well-over a year to receive final judgment of whether asylum status is ultimately granted.
While the Trump Administration moves forward with changing US immigration strategy, this may also cause a shift in diplomatic relations with other countries. Currently, there is no confirmation that Guatemala and Mexico are in agreeance with this asylum procedure. Other notions of immigration reform may be anticipated to follow.
Asylum is a US immigration status that is based on humanitarian concerns for people who have good reason to fear that harm will come to them if they return to their home countries. If you receive it, you will be allowed you to live and work in the US for an indefinite period of time. Asylum is granted only to people who are present in the US, however. If you are located abroad, you should apply for refugee status, which offers equivalent benefits.
Syrian Refugees
To qualify for legal residence under US asylum law, you must first qualify under the legal definition of “refugee”, even though you are present in the US. In other words, you must prove that you are unable or unwilling to return home because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution that is based on:
That’s a mouthful of legalese. To simplify the foregoing standard below is a clarification of the legal meaning of some of the italicized terms used above.
Persecution: Persecution means the infliction of harm or suffering or a credible threat to your life or freedom. A justifiable fear of imprisonment, torture, rape, murder or execution would likely fit this definition, for example. Persecution doesn’t have to be inflicted by the government — persecution committed by rival ethnic groups, drug cartels or terrorist organizations will qualify.
Well-founded fear: Essentially, “well-founded” fear means that you actually do fear returning home and that your fear is both reasonable and based on objective, provable facts.
Membership in a particular social group: This is a catch-all term meant to cover membership in a group that might be subjected to persecution. You only need to show your membership in this group — you don’t have to show that you are being personally targeted. For example, if teachers at secular schools are being targeted by militant religious groups in your country, you might qualify if you can prove that you were a teacher at a secular school.
Success and Freedom
Asylum claims, never easy to win, are becoming more difficult. In 2018, for example, only 35 percent of asylum claims were approved after six straight years of declining approval rates. Nevertheless, it helps to have a lawyer. According to a study conducted by Syracuse University, over half of the asylum claimants who were represented by attorneys saw their claims approved, while only about 10 percent of unrepresented claimants were successful in winning asylum.
Asylum claims can be divided into two types — affirmative asylum claims and defensive asylum claims. Your asylum claim is affirmative if you have not yet been placed in removal (deportation) proceedings; otherwise, it is defensive. Affirmative and defensive asylum claims represent two different paths to the same result.
Processing Times
Although the total length of the asylum claim process varies greatly from person to person, the general range is between six months and several years. The exact timing depends largely on (i) whether your claim is affirmative or defensive and (ii) the specific facts of your case. Other factors, such as the political orientation of the person who examines your claim, also plays a role.
Unfortunately, your asylum claim will be considered abandoned if you leave the US, and if you remain in the US you cannot receive a work permit until at least 180 days after your filing date.
It is best for you to apply for asylum before you are placed into removal proceedings, rather than afterward — overall, your chances of approval are significantly better if your claim is affirmative rather than defensive.
Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal
You initiate an affirmative asylum by filing Form I-589 with the USCIS. There is no filing fee, and you can submit your application by mail to the address listed in the instructions.
Fill out the form completely — leave nothing blank. If something doesn’t apply, simply write “N/A” (“not applicable”). Provide information that is as accurate and detailed information as you muster, but don’t try to guesstimate anything, such as an exact date — that could come back to haunt you later.
Include as many supporting documents to your asylum claim as you can assemble. These documents might include declarations from friends or family corroborating your story; newspaper articles reporting conditions in your home country; or a report from a medical expert if you are alleging previous physical harm or a psychological disturbance such as PTSD. All non-English documents should be accompanied by a certified translation.
African Family
You can apply for asylum on behalf of your spouse and any children who are unmarried and under 21 if they are present in the US, even if they don’t independently qualify for asylum. You will need to prove your relationship with them (a marriage certificate for your spouse, for example), and each of them must complete a separate Form I-589.
To maintain an affirmative asylum claim, you must submit your application within one year of the date of your most recent arrival in the US. Limited exceptions exist, for example, if:
Keep in mind that if none of the foregoing exceptions apply and you entered the US illegally, proving your compliance with the one-year deadline could be tricky.
U.S. Flag Behind Barbed Wire
You almost certainly will not be detained if you file an asylum claim before being placed in removal proceedings.
If you file an affirmative asylum claim, the USCIS will send you an interview date within 21 days after the date that you submit Form I-589. You will need to bring originals of all of the supporting documents you submitted with Form I-589, along with their certified translations. Family members whom you included in your application must attend the interview with you, and you may bring witnesses as well as an interpreter. You can also bring your attorney with you.
Your interview will last at least an hour. Stay calm and be honest, even if the officer doesn’t seem to believe your story. Your attorney will also have the chance to make a short statement on your behalf, and the officer may ask him some questions as well.
Denial Road Sign
If your affirmative asylum claim is denied by the USCIS, you will be placed in removal proceedings. Functionally, this means that your affirmative asylum claim will be converted into a defensive asylum claim, and you will get another chance to prove that your claim is valid, this time at a hearing before an immigration judge.
You could end up in defensive asylum proceedings in one of three ways:
Police – Arrest – Detention
If you applied for asylum after you were placed in removal proceedings, you will probably already be in detention, and you might remain there until your claim is decided or you agree to return home. If you claim asylum at a US port of entry (at an airport, for example), the officer is legally required to detain you.
Once your case makes it to immigration court, the harsh reality of asylum claims is that denial rates vary drastically from judges to judges, from location to location and from year to year. The strictest judges deny 99 percent of all claims that come before them, while the most lenient judges, deny only 15 to 20 percent of the claims they adjudicate.
Although overall approval rates are now under 20 percent, this statistic is misleading — many cases are dismissed because applicants fail to show up at their hearing, while other applicants voluntarily withdraw their claims.
Courthouse
Immigration hearings work a lot like criminal trials, except that you don’t enjoy some of the constitutional protections that you would enjoy in a criminal trial. Although you don’t have the right to a government-funded attorney, you may bring one with you if you are willing and able to pay for legal services on your own.
You can bring witnesses, and you will likely be questioned along with your witnesses. You will have a chance to present your case to the judge, either personally or through your lawyer. Either you or your lawyer can submit a brief to the court in support of your claim.
If the court orders you removed, you can appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The US Attorney General is entitled to intervene in your case and overrule the BIA; however, this is rarely done. If the BIA rules against you, you can appeal to the US Court of Appeals. Very few claimants win at this level, however — the approval rate is about eight percent. It is also possible to be deported while your appeal is still pending.
Marriage
Some asylum applicants marry a US citizen while their asylum claim is pending, and then abandon their asylum application in favor of a marriage-based immigration petition. Although approval rates for marriage-based immigration are higher than approval rates for asylum applications, marrying a US citizen under these circumstances is likely to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the marriage.
Furthermore, if you entered the US illegally in the first place, you will not be able to adjust your status to a permanent resident without leaving the US and applying from abroad, even with a US citizen spouse. Leaving the US could be problematic, however, if you have spent more than 180 days in the US in unlawful status. You could be barred from returning to the US even if you marry a US citizen. It is usually better to marry first and never apply for asylum in the first place.
Take care before you file an asylum claim. If your asylum claim is found by being fraudulent or “frivolous” (completely lacking in merit), you could be ruled permanently ineligible for any U.S. immigration benefits — even a visa based on other grounds, such as student status.
Once you are granted asylum, you must wait an additional year to apply for permanent residence. Your ability to apply for permanent residence is not guaranteed, however — if conditions in your home country improve during the one-year waiting period, you could be sent home instead. If you do receive permanent residence, however, you will be eligible to apply for US citizenship four years after the date that your green card was issued.
Applying for asylum becomes a bit more complex when you are already facing deportation proceedings. Asylum may be your best removal defense when immigration authorities are trying to eject you from the US but you fear returning to your home country.
The grounds for receiving asylum goes beyond just ordinary fear of returning to your country—you must establish unwillingness to return due to having faced persecution in the past or well-founded fear of being persecuted upon return on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
Asylum applicants bear the burden of proof in establishing that they meet this definition of a “refugee” under the Immigration Nationality Act. Applicants must also show that it is more likely than not that they will face persecution based on the above grounds if they are deported.
If you are already facing removal proceedings, your application for asylum should be brought straight to the immigration judge upon your court hearing. Remember, this is a complex process so retain an immigration lawyer to assist in your asylum defense.
Depending on the crime committed, your immigration lawyer might seek to obtain withholding of removal for your case if you are barred from obtaining asylum. However, the standard for granting withholding of removal are even greater than asylum as you must prove the probability of death or persecution if deported.
Immigration – Asylum
Upon your hearing, you will have the opportunity to tell the judge your story on why you fear returning to your home country. Your lawyer will ask you question to guide you along the way.
Your memory of past events and traumatic situations will become crucial to your asylum defense. It is likely that the immigration judge and the opposing counsel will question you too in order to gain as much information as possible. Remember to stay calm and give honest answers as any inconsistent responses may negatively affect the outcome of your case.
While asylum hearings may be temporarily uncomfortable, this is your chance to avoid returning to permanent distress. Tell the judge your complete story, and by the end of the hearing, you will receive his decision on whether your asylum application has been granted or denied.
Upon approval, you will be mailed additional forms stating your asylee status and right to maintain within the country.
Client: Lawful Permanent Resident
Client’s Country of Origin: Jordan
Case Type: Marriage Green Card/Asylum
Date of Application: March 2016
Date of Approval: Month 2019
In 2016, our client, a citizen of Jordan, entered the US on a visitor visa for personal travel. Shortly afterward, he applied for asylum. During the waiting period of the asylum application, our client united in marriage with a US citizen, and Chief Paralegal Connie Cook of Herman Legal Group assisted with filing for a marriage green card application concurrently with closing the asylum case.
Cook’s tactic to immediately file for a marriage green card application and administratively close the asylum case was extremely beneficial for our client. Firstly, asylum applications and processing are largely more extensive.
The applicant must file lengthy documents, produce fingerprints, background screening, and attend interviews prior to determining asylum approval or denial. In the US, the average timeframe for an asylum application to decision takes six months; however, the USCIS previously stated that due to increased workload priority related to border enforcement, there have been scheduling delays for asylum interviews.
Due to the above circumstances, our client essentially waited on asylum approval for nearly three years. However, with Herman Legal Group counsel, our client’s marriage green card application was filed and approved this year within months.
Furthermore, the asylum interview was just scheduled this year, where Cook attended the interview with our client and administratively closed the case due to the pending marriage green card approval.
By the time his term of office ends on January 20, 2021, Donald Trump will have reduced immigration to the United States by more than half. He has managed to accomplish all of this through executive order and regulatory changes, without any change in statutory law — and therefore no need for cooperation from Congress.
The timing of this decrease in immigration makes it obvious that nowhere near all of it can be attributed to the COVID-19 crisis.
The administration has erected so many walls against immigration, both literally and figuratively, that it would be impossible to list them all succinctly. All told, Trump issued more than 400 executive orders and actions, each of them with significant impact. Some of the highlights (or, perhaps better put, lowlights) are listed below.
The Trump legacy begins at the US border. Some of the administration’s more objectionable policies include:
Asylum claims have been rapidly increasing since before Trump took office. The Trump legacy, however, includes:
All told, these measures eliminate asylum as an option for most of those who seek it.
The Trump years have also been dismal for refugees:
Trump’s immigration initiatives did not stop at the border. Despite the Obama administration’s prioritizing of the apprehension of undocumented aliens with criminal records, Trump issued an executive order targeting all undocumented undocumented immigrants, even those not suspected of criminal activity. As a consequence, 36 percent of the undocumented immigrants arrested had no prior criminal record, compared to 14 percent in 2016.
Other actions taken by the Trump administration include:
The Obama administration offered forbearance to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the US as children. The Trump administration has offered them little more than hostility by canceling DACA protections, thereby putting immigrants who arrived in the US as children in danger of deportation.
This hostility has affected up to 500,000 undocumented immigrants. Even after the courts thwarted this policy, the Trump administration instituted a policy of denying all first-time applications and granting renewals for only one year at a time.
The Trump administration has strengthened the “public charge rule”, making it much easier to deny immigration benefits, including permanent residence, to an applicant based on poverty or use of public benefits. The new rules are so onerous that the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that nearly 70 percent of green card applicants are now at risk of denial on public charge grounds alone.
In addition to the foregoing innovation, the Trump administration has also ramped up enforcement of financial support commitments made by US sponsors of immigrants.
The Trump administration has initiated several unprecedented policies that make it more difficult for international students to study in the United States, including:
The USCIS and the Department of Labor have increased their scrutiny of nonimmigrant applications for employment-based visas, including both the H-1B and the L-1, among others. Denials of H-1B nonimmigrant visa applications, for example, have more than doubled.
The Trump administration has also narrowed the scope of eligibility for the visa. Entry-level computer programmers, for example, normally do not qualify for H-1B status any longer.
Other hostile measures include:
The Trump administration’s hostility towards employment-based immigrant visa applicants (many of whom are highly qualified) is reflected in recent policy adjustments:
It is worth repeating that the above-described hostile immigration policies are just the tip of the iceberg, and that all of this was accomplished without Congressional approval. The new Biden administration can reverse some of the policies with the stroke of a pen — but others will take considerably longer to implement.
CLEVELAND (HEADQUARTER)
© Copyright 2025, HLG, LLC. All Rights Reserved
