The Trump administration has launched a nationwide effort to end thousands of pending asylum cases in U.S. immigration courts by asking judges to dismiss claims without hearing them on the merits — and to order many asylum-seekers removed to “third countries” that are not their homelands.
The strategy centers on a procedural request known as a “pretermit” motion. In these filings, government attorneys argue that people seeking asylum in the United States can be deported to another country that has agreed to accept non-citizen deportees, even if the asylum-seeker has never lived there and has no legal ties to that nation. If a judge grants the motion, the asylum case is effectively wiped out, clearing the way for removal unless the immigrant successfully appeals.
Immigration lawyers say the effort has intensified in recent weeks and has appeared in courts across multiple regions, including major hubs such as Atlanta, New York, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Texas. The result, attorneys argue, is a fast-track mechanism designed to shrink the asylum docket and accelerate deportations, especially for people who entered the U.S. illegally and later filed asylum claims while in removal proceedings.
MORE THAN 8,000 MOTIONS FILED
Internal government data indicates that, as of early December, government attorneys had filed more than 8,000 requests in immigration court seeking to toss out asylum claims by invoking third-country deportation arrangements. Court filings and attorney accounts describe requests to send asylum-seekers to countries including Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, and Uganda.
In a public statement, the Department of Homeland Security has framed the policy as part of a broader push to reduce the backlog and address what it describes as abuse of the asylum system, while still preserving “legal process,” including hearings before immigration judges. The administration argues that existing law allows removal to partner countries that can fairly process protection claims.
A LEGAL LEVER: “SAFE THIRD COUNTRY” LOGIC
At the heart of the approach is a section of immigration law that can bar asylum in the United States if the applicant can seek protection in another country that has a qualifying arrangement with the U.S. The government’s position is that certain bilateral deals make it lawful to redirect asylum-seekers to third countries for protection rather than allowing their claims to proceed in the United States.
The strategy gained additional momentum after a late-October ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which sets nationwide precedent for immigration judges. That decision directed judges to address third-country removal requests before reaching the underlying asylum claims — and placed more responsibility on asylum-seekers to show why they should not be sent to a third country, including by demonstrating fear of persecution there as well.
“YOU JUST HAVE TO GIVE UP”: LAWYERS WARN OF DUE-PROCESS SHOCKWAVES
Immigration attorneys report that the new filings are sometimes delivered with little notice — days, or even a day or two, before scheduled hearings that can determine whether someone can remain in the United States. That late-stage disruption, lawyers say, forces asylum applicants to abruptly pivot from proving danger in their home countries to also proving danger in unfamiliar third countries.
Attorneys contend the tactic is not limited to weak cases. Some say the motions have been filed against clients with strong claims who fled persecution in countries such as Iran, Nicaragua, and Russia. The fear among advocates is that the policy is designed to pressure people into abandoning claims altogether, by raising the stakes of being sent to a country they do not know and may perceive as unsafe.
In one reported scenario, a lawyer said a political dissident from Nicaragua was ordered deported to Honduras after a government motion was granted. In another, an Iranian asylum-seeker who had prepared a case based on the risk of persecution due to past same-sex relationships was forced to quickly assemble arguments about potential harm in Uganda after the government sought third-country removal; a judge ultimately rejected that motion in that case.
Other lawyers say judges have signaled they feel constrained by the new appellate guidance, warning attorneys that an appeal may be the next step if third-country deportation motions are granted.
COURTS UNDER PRESSURE, AND NEW LITIGATION EMERGES
Immigration courts are administrative tribunals housed in the executive branch, overseen by the Justice Department. Government lawyers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement represent the administration in these proceedings, and they are now using third-country removal arguments as a frontline tactic in a system already strained by years of backlog.
Legal groups are challenging aspects of the policy and the regulations that government attorneys cite to justify these third-country deportation requests. Advocates argue the approach strips asylum-seekers of a fair opportunity to present their claims, especially when motions arrive late and force a complex, high-stakes legal shift with minimal time to prepare.
BIGGER PICTURE: A HARDENED ASYLUM POSTURE
The campaign reflects a broader strategy to sharply curtail access to asylum, which the administration has repeatedly portrayed as overly permissive and vulnerable to misuse. Supporters say the shift restores control and accelerates removals. Critics warn it creates a high-risk pipeline that could send people to countries they have never been to, potentially exposing them to harm and undermining long-standing protections built into U.S. asylum law.
As the policy expands, the next battlegrounds will be inside immigration courtrooms — where judges weigh these motions case-by-case — and in federal courts, where lawsuits could determine how far the government can go in redirecting asylum-seekers to third countries without fully hearing their claims.
SEO KEYWORDS (COPY-PASTE)
Trump asylum policy, ICE asylum cases dismissed, pretermit motion immigration court, third country deportations, safe third country agreement, asylum cases thrown out, DHS asylum crackdown, Trump immigration enforcement 2025, ICE motions 8000 asylum, deportation to Uganda Guatemala Honduras Ecuador, immigration court backlog, Board of Immigration Appeals ruling October 2025, asylum due process concerns, expedited deportations, asylum seekers sent to third countries, U.S. asylum system changes, immigration judge asylum dismissal, ICE attorney pretermit filings, removal proceedings asylum, legal challenge third country deportations, asylum hearing canceled, Trump DHS deportation strategy, immigration policy tightening, asylum fraud crackdown, administrative immigration courts DOJ, asylum case preemption, third country protection claims, U.S. deportation agreements, asylum applicants redirected, immigration lawyer warnings asylum
