Suspension of Asylum at the Southern Border

What Happened

On January 20, 2025 -- his first day in office -- President Trump signed an executive order declaring the situation at the southern border an "invasion" and suspending the physical entry of migrants, including the ability of people to seek asylum. The CBP One app, which asylum seekers used to schedule appointments at ports of entry, was shut down immediately.

The order went far beyond prior restrictions on asylum. Previous administrations had imposed processing requirements and transit bars, but no president had attempted a blanket suspension of the statutory right to apply for asylum. Immigration advocates described it as "a flat-out ban on all asylum" and "way beyond anything that even President Trump has tried in the past."

Legal Challenge

In February 2025, the ACLU, Texas Civil Rights Project, and National Immigrant Justice Center filed suit on behalf of RAICES, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project. The plaintiffs argued that the executive order violated the Refugee Act of 1980, which codifies the right to apply for asylum regardless of manner of entry into the United States.

On July 2, 2025, U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss issued a 128-page ruling striking down the asylum ban. Judge Moss found that "The President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted." The ruling affirmed that the statutory right to apply for asylum is not subject to presidential suspension by executive order.

International Law Analysis

The asylum ban violates multiple binding international obligations:

Non-refoulement: Article 33 of the Refugee Convention prohibits returning refugees to countries where their life or freedom would be threatened. A blanket ban on asylum processing prevents any individualized assessment of protection needs, creating mass refoulement risk.

Right to seek asylum: Article 14 of the UDHR guarantees the right to seek and enjoy asylum. The elimination of all avenues for asylum claims -- at ports of entry, between ports, and through the CBP One app -- effectively nullified this right at the entire southern border.

Prohibition on penalizing irregular entry: Article 31 of the Refugee Convention prohibits penalizing refugees for irregular entry when they come from territories where their life or freedom is threatened. The executive order treated all entry as unlawful regardless of protection needs.

Convention Against Torture: Article 3 of CAT absolutely prohibits return to countries where individuals face torture risk. Without any asylum processing, individuals with credible torture claims were turned away without evaluation.

Why This Entry Is Rated Severe

• Unprecedented scope: The first blanket suspension of the statutory right to seek asylum in US history
• Judicial finding of illegality: A federal judge ruled the order violates federal law in a comprehensive 128-page opinion
• Mass refoulement risk: Turning away all asylum seekers without any individualized assessment of protection needs
• Elimination of legal pathways: Shutting down the CBP One app, closing ports of entry to asylum claims, and suspending processing between ports left no avenue for protection
• Violation of binding treaty obligations: The ban contravenes the Refugee Convention, CAT, and ICCPR