In an escalating effort to expedite the removal of immigrants, lawyers within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are employing a controversial legal tactic. This strategy involves dismissing asylum cases, which can hasten the deportation process for individuals seeking refuge in the United States.
Reported incidents include at least two men being arrested by federal immigration agents outside a San Francisco immigration court. Mission Local, among other sources, captured the moment as these men were loaded into waiting minivans while protesters attempted to obstruct the arrests.
When an asylum seeker’s case is dismissed without a viable alternative to remain in the U.S., they are placed in a precarious legal situation. Although they are still considered undocumented, they lose the protections from deportation that their asylum application provided.
As explained by Robert Barchiesi, a criminal and immigration attorney, this means DHS can “encounter” them again as if they are near a border crossing, enabling immediate arrests and placement in expedited removal proceedings.
Critics, including Milli Atkinson, the Immigrant Legal Defense Program Director for the Justice and Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco, argue that this tactic is unlawful.
Similarly, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has taken action against what it argues are expanded and improper uses of expedited removal power. Earlier this year, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the government’s fast-tracked deportation policies, citing courthouse arrests as a significant concern.
Expedited removal allows DHS to quickly deport unauthorized individuals without the usual judicial process. Traditionally, this power has been exercised closer to the U.S. borders, targeting individuals shortly after they enter the country. If they do not indicate a fear of persecution, they risk immediate detention and deportation.
On the ground in San Francisco, it was reported that DHS attorneys are routinely moving to dismiss asylum cases to facilitate expedited removals.
Mission Local observed the court hearings of the two men arrested. Both had passed the first crucial hurdle in the asylum process, having undergone a credible fear hearing, which is the initial assessment for those seeking asylum. However, during their hearings, DHS attorneys requested their asylum cases be dismissed. Following their hearings, ICE agents promptly took them into custody, and their current locations remain unknown.
The recent trend of DHS dismissing asylum cases marks a departure from previous practices. Historically, dismissals occurred mainly when defendants secured another legal option to stay in the U.S., such as through marriage.
Under the Biden administration, asylum cases were often handled differently, addressing court backlog issues by redirecting cases from courts into an administrative process to minimize delays.
However, the current actions by DHS do not resemble Biden-era policies. According to Barchiesi, he first noted this troubling trend on the East Coast about a month prior to the incidents in San Francisco. His involvement grew as clients faced dismissals, and it’s likely that the situation there reflects a broader national pattern.
Atkinson identified the first known dismissal of an asylum case by a DHS attorney in San Francisco on May 21. Since then, over ten individuals have reportedly been arrested following these dismissals, highlighting a concerning pattern.
Judges in San Francisco are starting to recognize this strategy by DHS. During Mission Local’s observations in court, judges consistently denied requests to dismiss asylum cases.
This judicial resistance should have prevented DHS from carrying out detentions after the case dismissals, as noted by attorney Hayden Rodarte. Yet, despite judges’ rulings, the government appears to be sidelining these decisions and proceeding with arrests as if the dismissals had taken place.
This practice of detaining individuals while they are actively involved in court proceedings stands in contrast to the traditional policies where ICE refrains from detaining individuals in court.
At multiple hearings reported on by Mission Local, DHS provided vague justifications for dismissals, mentioning simply that it was “no longer in the interest” of the government to pursue the case.
Amid these developments, immigration attorney Alexandra Bachan now advises clients to attend hearings via video whenever possible to reduce the risk of subsequent ICE apprehensions.
While she has yet to encounter a case in which DHS has sought to dismiss an asylum application, she witnessed this tactic during a recent hearing.
As of now, the situation remains fluid, and the whereabouts of the asylum seekers arrested during these events are unclear. Although they still possess active asylum cases, their ability to navigate that process while detained could face significant hurdles.
In summary, the DHS’s recent actions raise substantial legal and ethical questions about the treatment of asylum seekers in the U.S. and could signify a larger shift in the administration’s approach to immigration policy.
image source from：https://missionlocal.org/2025/06/expedited-removal-s-f-immigration-court/
