Law360 (July 27, 2026, 5:12 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security unveiled a new regulation Monday allowing asylum officers to skip interviews if they determine someone is barred from, ineligible for or does not merit asylum and send those cases straight to immigration court.

Previously, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would interview generally all affirmative asylum applicants — meaning those who are not already in removal proceedings — and either grant asylum or deny applications from those still lawfully present in the U.S., and refer applicants without lawful status to immigration court.

Under the interim final rule, slated to take effect Tuesday, USCIS asylum officers can now skip the interview process in cases where they determine based on the application materials that an applicant should be referred to immigration court. Asylum officers will retain the ability to conduct interviews when they deem it appropriate, but DHS is removing language from the relevant regulations referring to an applicant's "right" to an interview.

The public will have 60 days to comment on the rule, which will be applied to all pending and future affirmative asylum cases. The regulation will not apply to asylum cases that begin in immigration court with a removal notice.

DHS said it could impact about 31% of the asylum applications pending before USCIS — more than 444,000 cases of more than 1.4 million — which the agency suggested were untimely filed.

DHS estimated that the rule would likely result in more than 132,000 asylum cases annually being referred to immigration court without interviews, and could shift more burden onto the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the component of the U.S. Department of Justice that oversees the immigration court system.

While DHS said the rule could increase EOIR's case backlog, it concluded the impact might be minimal because the rule is targeted at cases that would have been referred to the immigration court anyway, even if interviews were conducted, the agency said.

DHS said the rule would free up interview slots for more meritorious cases, billing the measure as a way to increase agency efficiency, address the backlog of asylum applications pending before USCIS, and more quickly identify national security threats.

In a statement, USCIS Director Joseph Edlow said the asylum system has been exploited by individuals with illegitimate asylum claims who are seeking "delay and work authorization."

"America's asylum system exists to protect individuals who genuinely fear persecution and this rule will help ensure that resources are directed to the timely adjudication of those claims instead of to those seeking to use the system as a loophole," Edlow said.

DHS General Counsel James Percival said the rule would address "intentional delay" tactics caused by unauthorized immigrants and the attorneys who file their asylum claims.

And in a post on X, the White House said the rule would make the government more efficient and speed up immigration enforcement, saying the regulation would "CRUSH the immigration asylum backlog."

Ben Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, contested that assertion, saying in a statement that the interim final rule would actually make the immigration court backlog worse because asylum officers can hear cases faster than immigration judges. 

Johnson also said that funneling more people into the immigration court system will "stack the scales of justice against vulnerable people fleeing torture and persecution." While interviews with asylum officers are non-adversarial and designed to elicit testimony about whether an applicant qualifies for asylum, removal proceedings in immigration court pit immigrants against government attorneys. 

"Instead of wasting court resources and depriving asylum seekers of due process, more cases should be directed to asylum officers who can do a thorough review of their case far more quickly than judges," Johnson said.

--Editing by Kelly Duncan.

Update: This story has been updated with comment from the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.