The Trump administration is evaluating a proposal to eliminate the interview stage for certain affirmative asylum cases to expedite rejections.
This shift would fundamentally alter the U.S. immigration process by removing a critical step where applicants present their claims in person. If implemented, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would bypass the interview and send cases straight to immigration court.
Officials said they are considering the rule to speed up the adjudication process and reduce the existing backlog of applications [2]. By allowing cases to be rejected without an interview, the administration aims to clear the system of claims it deems ineligible more quickly [1].
This proposal could impact approximately 1.5 million asylum applicants [4]. Under the current system, an affirmative asylum application involves a review of documentation followed by an interview at a USCIS field office. The proposed change would remove that personal interaction for certain applicants, effectively moving the first point of adjudication to a judicial setting.
Reports indicate the evaluation of this plan took place in June 2026 [2]. The administration said it is seeking a more efficient way to manage the volume of requests entering the U.S. immigration system.
While the administration views the move as a tool for efficiency, the change would mean many applicants would not have the opportunity to clarify their claims before a USCIS officer. Instead, those cases would be referred to immigration courts, where the burden of proof remains with the applicant during removal proceedings.
“The Trump administration is evaluating a proposal to eliminate the interview stage for certain affirmative asylum cases.”
The elimination of the asylum interview would shift the primary site of asylum adjudication from administrative offices to the overburdened immigration court system. By removing the USCIS interview, the government reduces the time and resources spent on individual screenings, but it likely increases the caseload for immigration judges and removes a layer of administrative review for applicants.
