Federal Judge Halts New Asylum Application Fee Amid Confusion and Inconsistent Policies

Federal Judge Halts New Asylum Application Fee Amid Confusion

Maryland — In a significant ruling on Thursday, a federal judge temporarily paused the implementation of a new annual asylum application fee, citing widespread confusion and inconsistent policies between federal agencies. Judge Stephanie Gallagher’s decision comes as a relief to many asylum seekers who have expressed anxiety over the recently introduced $100 fee mandated by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The judge criticized the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) for acting “arbitrarily and capriciously” by issuing conflicting guidance on the fee’s payment process. Gallagher noted that the lack of coordination between the two agencies has caused “significant confusion,” with some asylum seekers facing removal orders before any payment mechanism was established.

“The defendants have not resolved the inconsistency between the two agencies’ policies,” Gallagher stated, emphasizing that the conflicting rules have created “irreparable harm” for those seeking asylum in the U.S.

The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP) filed a lawsuit in Maryland, arguing that the government unlawfully applied the new fee to individuals who had filed their cases prior to the law’s enactment. Under the new legislation, asylum applicants are required to pay the fee annually for as long as their cases remain pending—a stark change from the previous policy, which imposed no fees.

Notices regarding the fee began circulating on October 1, with a 30-day window for applicants to comply, raising concerns that payments could be due as early as October 31. Many asylum seekers, already in precarious situations, have reported feeling panicked and confused. One Russian applicant shared his worries about not receiving any instructions on how to pay the fee, while others have expressed fears of deportation over financial constraints.

“They would have to choose between feeding their families or paying the fee,” said Susan Pelletier, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, during a recent hearing.

The lawsuit highlights the plight of individuals like a Honduran woman who fears deportation due to her inability to pay the fee, and a Nigerian man who only learned about the new rule through social media, worrying that missing a payment could jeopardize his case.

In response to the lawsuit, EOIR has established a payment portal for the fee and committed to notifying individuals affected by the new policy. However, ASAP argues that the agencies are retroactively applying the fee and providing contradictory information, leading to further confusion.

During the hearing, Judge Gallagher pressed a Department of Justice attorney on whether the fee was being applied retroactively. The attorney clarified that the fee was intended to help manage the backlog of asylum cases, likening it to a property tax meant to sustain the system rather than penalize past applicants.

As the situation unfolds, Gallagher indicated she would consider lifting the stay on the fee once the agencies provide clear, uniform guidance on payment deadlines and mechanisms. For now, many asylum seekers can breathe a sigh of relief as they await further clarity on this contentious issue.