U.S. Lawyers Flood Immigration Courts with Dismissal Motions, Steering Asylum Seekers Abroad

Breaking: Thousands of Motions to Dismiss Asylum Cases Filed in U.S. Immigration Courts

In a growing pattern, lawyers representing asylum seekers have submitted thousands of motions to dismiss asylum cases in U.S. immigration courts, with the aim of redirecting applicants to pursue protections through other venues. The filings cover cases across multiple jurisdictions and have surged in recent months.

Advocates and immigration experts say the tactic is reshaping how asylum claims are managed.The filings are designed to terminate current proceedings and press for alternative paths, perhaps shifting where and how asylum requests are evaluated.

what the Filings Reveal

Official tallies show a substantial rise in requests to dismiss ongoing asylum cases. Attorneys assert that these motions reflect strategic decisions made to change the course of a claimant’s proceedings, rather than to abandon a case entirely.

Why It Matters

Experts warn that repeated dismissal motions can lengthen processing times and complicate access to counsel. For asylum seekers, the shift may affect the timeline, available remedies, and the options for pursuing protection. The pattern also raises questions about how the immigration court system allocates resources and manages case flow.

How the Process Works

In immigration court, motions to dismiss or terminate proceedings are filed by defense counsel. When granted,these motions can end a current asylum case in court and prompt pursuit of asylum through other channels or jurisdictions,depending on the legal framework governing each case.

legal authorities outline the avenues available for asylum seekers, including adjustments to where or how claims can be considered. For readers seeking more detail on the asylum process,official information is available from the Executive Office for Immigration Review and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Key Facts At A Glance

aspect	Details
Volume	Thousands of motions to dismiss asylum cases filed across immigration courts
Purpose	Terminate current proceedings and redirect applicants to pursue asylum elsewhere
actors	Defense attorneys representing asylum seekers
Potential Effects	Delays, jurisdictional shifts, impact on legal representation access

Experts Weigh In

Analysts say the surge reflects strategic considerations within immigration litigation, even as advocates caution about the broader implications for asylum access and fairness in proceedings. observers note that these motions can influence the pace of cases and the options available to individuals seeking protection.

What To Watch Next

• Any changes in court procedures or guidance related to dismissal motions.
• How the volume of filings affects wait times and resource allocation in immigration courts.

Related Reading

For deeper context on the asylum process, see official resources from the Justice Department’s EOIR and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For questions about your own case, consult a qualified attorney.

What do you think about the use of dismissal motions to redirect asylum claims? Do you believe this approach helps or harms asylum seekers? Share your thoughts in the comments and on social media.

Share this developing story and tell us what you think about these motions and their impact on asylum access.

Required Supporting Evidence motion to Dismiss (Form EOIR‑33) 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 Counsel argues lack of jurisdiction, procedural defect, or client‑initiated withdrawal. Affidavits, prior removal orders, client’s written intent. Request for Voluntary Departure 8 C.F.R. § 1240.25 Seeks a set period for the client to leave the U.S. without a formal removal order. Proof of financial means, travel arrangements, and absence of persecution risk. Submission for Withdrawal of Application for Relief 8 C.F.R. § 1240.18 Client elects to abandon asylum claim after a change in circumstances. Written declaration of withdrawal,risk assessment. Motion to Reopen/Reinstate Prior removal 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10 Argues that the client’s current filing is improper because a former removal order remains valid. Original removal order, evidence of “material change” denial.

---

The Surge in Dismissal Motions: what the Numbers Reveal

• 2022‑2024 filing spike – EOIR reported a 38 % increase in “motion to dismiss” filings by defense counsel, rising from 12,400 motions in FY 2022 to 17,200 in FY 2024.
• Success rate – Approximately 62 % of these motions resulted in case termination, either through voluntary departure or reinstatement of a prior removal order.
• Court docket impact – The same period saw a 22 % reduction in average case duration, shrinking from 18.3 months to 14.2 months per asylum hearing.

Sources: U.S.Department of Justice, EOIR Annual Report 2024; American Immigration Council, “Immigration Court Statistics” 2023.

---

Legal Basis for Filing Dismissal Motions

Motion type	Governing Statute/Regulation	Typical Use	Required Supporting Evidence
Motion to Dismiss (Form EOIR‑33)	8 C.F.R. § 1003.19	Counsel argues lack of jurisdiction, procedural defect, or client‑initiated withdrawal.	Affidavits, prior removal orders, client’s written intent.
Request for Voluntary Departure	8 C.F.R. § 1240.25	Seeks a set period for the client to leave the U.S. without a formal removal order.	Proof of financial means, travel arrangements, and absence of persecution risk.
Application for Withdrawal of Application for Relief	8 C.F.R. § 1240.18	Client elects to abandon asylum claim after a change in circumstances.	Written declaration of withdrawal, risk assessment.
Motion to Reopen/Reinstate Prior removal	8 C.F.R. § 1240.10	Argues that the client’s current filing is improper because a former removal order remains valid.	Original removal order, evidence of “material change” denial.

---

How Dismissal Motions Direct Asylum Seekers Abroad

1. Voluntary Departure Orders

• Mechanism – The immigration judge issues a departure deadline (usually 30-90 days). Non‑compliance triggers a formal removal order that can be executed by ICE.
• effect on asylum seekers – Many clients lack the resources to secure safe travel,resulting in forced returns to countries were they face persecution.

2.Reinstatement of Prior Removal Orders

• Mechanism – Counsel cites an earlier removal order that was never formally dismissed. The judge reinstates it, bypassing the merits hearing.
• Effect on asylum seekers – The reinstated order often triggers “expedited removal” without the chance for a new asylum interview.

3. Strategic “Self‑Removal”

• Mechanism – Attorneys file a voluntary departure motion while simultaneously advising clients to depart before the deadline, avoiding a formal removal stamp.
• Effect on asylum seekers – This practice can limit future eligibility for U.S. re‑entry or humanitarian parole, effectively steering clients abroad.

Source: immigration Policy Center,”The Rise of Dismissal Strategies” 2024.

---

Case Study: The 2023 “Mendoza” Dismissal Wave

• Background – In September 2023, a coalition of five immigration firms filed 1,274 dismissal motions for clients from Central America, citing “lack of credible fear.”
• outcome – 78 % of the motions were granted, resulting in 997 voluntary departure orders within three months.
• Impact – The Department of State reported a 42 % increase in refugee admissions from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador during the same period, suggesting a direct correlation between dismissal filings and outbound migration.

source: Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, “Mendoza Dismissal Wave” 2023.

---

Benefits and Risks for Courts and Clients

Benefits for Immigration Courts

• Reduced backlog – Dismissals free up hearing slots, allowing judges to prioritize cases with stronger merit.
• Lower operational costs – Fewer full hearings translate into decreased staffing and facility expenses.

Risks to Asylum Seekers

• Potential refoulement – Voluntary departure to a country where the client faces persecution may violate the non‑refoulement principle under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
• Loss of legal remedies – Once a removal order is reinstated,the client’s ability to file a new asylum claim is severely limited,especially under the “one‑time filing” rule (8 C.F.R. § 1240.20).

Source: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) policy brief, “non‑Refoulement in U.S. Removal Procedures” 2024.

---

Practical Tips for Attorneys Navigating Dismissal Motions

1. Conduct a thorough risk assessment – Document any genuine fear of persecution before advising voluntary departure.
2. Secure client consent in writing – Ensure the client’s signature on a detailed declaration outlining consequences of dismissal.
3. Explore alternatives – Consider “stay of removal” or “protective parole” if the client’s safety is uncertain.
4. Maintain openness with the court – Provide a concise factual basis for the motion to avoid accusations of “forum shopping.”
5. Coordinate with NGOs – Refer clients to organizations like Asylum access or Refugee Council USA for post‑departure support.

---

Resources and Support networks for Affected Asylum Seekers

• Legal Aid: Immigration Legal resource Center (ILRC) – free webinars on navigating voluntary departure.
• Humanitarian Assistance: International Rescue Committee (IRC) – emergency cash assistance for outbound travel.
• advocacy: American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) – policy papers on reforming dismissal practices.
• Hotline: U.S. Department of State “Protection Hotline” – 1‑800‑784‑8942 for immediate safety concerns abroad.

All resources updated as of october 2025.