Skip to Content



What occurs when a person subject to expedited removal has fled their country of origin due to fear of persecution?

A noncitizen seeking asylum to flee persecution in their country of origin are not subject to expedited removal. If a noncitizen states to a CBP officer that they fear returning to their country or origin, or that they intend to apply for asylum, the officer must refer the noncitizen to an asylum officer, who will then conduct an interview of the noncitizen to determine whether he or she has a “credible fear” of persecution or torture if returned to his or her country of origin. If the noncitizen satisfies the credible fear standard, the applicant will be taken out of the expedited removal process and will then be placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge, who ultimately will determine whether the migrant has a valid asylum claim. If the immigration judge determines that the noncitizen does have a credible fear of persecution, the detainee may apply for asylum.

The Supreme Court said Friday, October 18, 2019, it will review a lower court decision that hinders the Trump administration’s desire to more quickly deport undocumented immigrants after their requests for asylum have been denied.

The case centers on Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a native citizen of Sri Lanka who’s a member of an ethnic minority group. He was arrested 25 yards north of the US-Mexico border and placed in expedited removal proceedings. That fast-track deportation procedure allows immigration authorities to remove an individual without a hearing before an immigration judge.

Thuraissigiam applied for asylum, citing fear of persecution in Sri Lanka, and an asylum officer determined he had not established a credible fear of persecution. A supervising officer and an immigration judge affirmed the decision. Under the law, after the denial, Thuraissigiam was ineligible to challenge the finding.

Thuraissigiam went to federal district court, arguing that the expedited removal violated his constitutional rights. A district court said the law did not authorize the court to hear his claims. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, but said the law violates the Suspension Clause, which, the court held, requires Thuraissigiam, even as a noncitizen, to have a “meaningful opportunity” to demonstrate that he is being held against the law.

The Trump administration argued in briefs that the law — which sharply limits judicial review to final orders of removal — was passed so that the asylum system would not be abused. The law offers some exceptions, but they were not met by Thuraissigiam.

Share To: