Any Questions?
We are ready to answer all your questions. Just fill the form and we will call you soon.
What the New USCIS Suspensions Mean for Asylum Seekers
This morning I joined journalist Lourdes Ubieta on Radio Libre to discuss a development that is generating deep uncertainty among many immigrant communities: the federal government’s announcement that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will pause the adjudication of immigration applications from nationals of nineteen countries that have also been targeted by a recent presidential proclamation on travel restrictions.
This policy was announced in the wake of a tragic shooting in Washington, D.C., allegedly committed by an Afghan national, and the government has explicitly framed these changes as additional “national security” measures. Its consequences, however, reach far beyond that single event.
What This Means in Practice
Under this new framework, USCIS has instructed officers to pause decisions on many immigration applications— including affirmative asylum cases—that are filed by people from these nineteen countries, while the agency conducts additional background review or “vetting.”
In practical terms, this means:
- Many cases will remain pending without approval or denial while the additional screening is completed.
- This can apply even if the applicant already had an interview scheduled or completed. The interview may still be held, but a final decision can be held back until the new review is finished.
Multiple federal, local, and sometimes foreign agencies may become involved in these security checks, which makes it very difficult to predict how long the process will actually take. We know from experience that multi-agency vetting tends to move slowly, and we must be realistic in expecting longer processing times and growing backlogs.
What Happens If Your Asylum Case Is Pending?
If you have a pending affirmative asylum case with USCIS, it is very important to understand one key point:
- A paused asylum case does not, by itself, make you undocumented.
- While your asylum application is properly filed and remains pending, you generally do not accrue unlawful presence under existing immigration law, even if your interview or decision is delayed, unless some separate negative event happens in your case.
However, the fact that you may not be accruing unlawful presence does not mean everything else stays the same. The area where most people will feel the impact is work authorization.
Impact on Work Permits (EADs)
The question I am hearing most often is:
“Will I keep my work permit while my asylum remains pending?”
At this time, there is no USCIS policy that guarantees that all asylum applicants from these nineteen countries will keep uninterrupted eligibility for work authorization during prolonged delays. The situation is changing and depends on several overlapping rules:
- New 19-Country Policies
Recent policy guidance indicates that being from one of the nineteen countries can be treated as a negative factor in discretionary decisions, including some immigration benefits. Advocacy organizations monitoring these changes report that USCIS has paused processing of several types of applications from these countries, including asylum, green cards, and in some cases work permits. - End of Broad Automatic EAD Extensions for Many Categories
Separately, in late October 2025, the Department of Homeland Security issued an interim final rule ending the practice of granting broad automatic extensions of many categories of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for people who file renewal applications on or after October 30, 2025.- Automatic extensions of up to 540 days continue to apply to eligible renewal applicants who filed before that effective date.
- For new renewal filings after that date, many workers will no longer receive an automatic extension while their EAD is pending.
- Asylum-Based Work Permits Are Discretionary and Case-Specific
Even before these changes, asylum-based work permits (category C-08) were not automatic. Applicants had to meet the required waiting period and eligibility criteria, and USCIS always retained discretion to grant or deny. With the new national-security-focused policies and the 19-country framework, there is even more uncertainty for applicants whose cases fall under these rules.
In practical terms, this means that some people could experience gaps in work authorization—especially if their EAD renewal is filed after October 30, 2025, or if their case is flagged for additional vetting under the 19-country policies.
That is why I remain especially concerned about asylum seekers who may be forced to wait years for a final asylum decision without clear assurances that their work authorization will be renewed smoothly during that entire period.
We are entering a period in which patience, documentation, and accurate information will be essential. As more official guidance becomes available, I will continue to explain these updates to help the community understand their options and their rights.
If you or a loved one is affected by:
- The June 4, 2025 Presidential Proclamation imposing new travel restrictions on nationals of 19 countries,
- The more recent USCIS directives pausing decisions on asylum and other applications from those same countries, or
- The new rules on work permit extensions,
I strongly encourage you to seek individualized legal advice. These policies are complex, evolving, and heavily dependent on the details of each person’s case.
For information about scheduling a consultation, you may visit my website, follow me on social media, or call my office at (305) 671-0018.
Disclaimer:
This article is intended solely to provide general information on recent immigration developments. It should not be interpreted as legal advice or a substitute for individualized consultation. Immigration regulations, agency policies, and federal directives change rapidly, and their application varies depending on the facts of each case. No attorney–client relationship is formed by accessing this content. Individuals should seek personalized legal counsel before making decisions related to their immigration status, work authorization, or any other matter discussed herein.
SPANISH TRANSCRIPT
LOURDES UBIETA:
Bueno, avanzando con los temas, queridos oyentes, el gobierno de Estados Unidos, la administración del presidente Trump anunció ya formalmente lo que nos habían advertido que iba a suceder tras el tiroteo ocurrido en Washington el día antes de Thanksgiving, el jueves de la semana pasada, donde un afgano le disparó a dos guardias nacionales. Bueno, pocas horas después falleció una de ellas, una joven de 20 años. Eso desató, por supuesto, la furia del presidente Trump y de la administración. Y bueno, anunciaban que lo que es el USCIS, la Oficina de Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración, iba a implementar nuevas medidas de seguridad nacional a raíz de este tiroteo, ¿no?
Pero ya es un hecho que todas las solicitudes de inmigración provenientes de diecinueve países considerados de alto riesgo según el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, citando ese caso de ese tiroteo, pues van a ser suspendidas todas las solicitudes de inmigración. Estamos hablando, amigos oyentes, de países como Afganistán, Myanmar, Chad, la República del Congo, Haití, Irán, Libia, Cuba y Venezuela.
Y esa lista se basa en esta proclamación presidencial de junio que impuso restricciones parciales o totales a la entrada de ciudadanos de estos países, y ahora queda totalmente suspendido. Uno se pregunta: ¿cómo quedan entonces las solicitudes, por ejemplo, de asilo de estas personas que están en los Estados Unidos? De Cuba y de Venezuela puntualmente, ¿no? Porque son los más cercanos que vemos. La doctora Martha Arias está con nosotros a esta hora, abogada de inmigración. Abogada, qué bueno saludarla. Bienvenida a su casa, Radio Libre.
ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Muchísimas gracias, Lourdes. Un placer para mí estar con usted. También un saludo para todos y gracias por invitarme de nuevo a su programa.
LOURDES UBIETA:
Yo feliz de tenerla por aquí, doctora, para que nos ayude a entender qué va a pasar ahora. Porque en el documento se especifica que quienes se ajusten a esos criterios que estábamos mencionando deberán someterse a un proceso de revisión exhaustivo que puede incluir una entrevista o una nueva entrevista para evaluar todas las amenazas contra la seguridad nacional y la seguridad pública. ¿Cómo le parece y cómo va a operar esto, doctora?
ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Esta es una de esas situaciones donde teóricamente todos estaríamos de acuerdo con un procedimiento de revisión de antecedentes penales de las personas, ¿cierto? O sea, yo pienso que como ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos, habitantes de esta comunidad, queremos que el gobierno sepa y nos ayude con esa seguridad de vigilar quién entra a nuestro país y quién está aplicando para asilo, para que no vaya a ser un terrorista o una persona de cualquier organización delictiva. Obviamente que todos queremos eso, ¿cierto? O sea, teóricamente es algo que creo que todos los ciudadanos quisieran.
En la práctica, me parece a mí que lo difícil es la aplicación de esto. Porque, como usted bien lo dijo, Lourdes, se van a paralizar o pausar la toma de decisiones de todos esos casos de asilo, particularmente los que entraron en los últimos años, y sobre todo los que entraron por la frontera sin inspección o los que entraron con parole y pertenezcan a alguno de estos 19 países.
Entonces, ¿qué quiere decir pausar la toma de decisiones? Que no van ni a aprobar ni a negar ninguno de estos casos hasta que no se haga una revisión de ellos. Obviamente son casos que o ya tuvieron entrevista, o están a punto, o van a tener entrevista, y después de la entrevista pues no va a pasar nada. Las entrevistas se van a seguir dando; o sea, al que no haya tenido entrevista le van a dar entrevista. El punto es que no se va a tomar ninguna decisión hasta que no le revisen exhaustivamente esos récords penales a las personas.
Entonces la pregunta siguiente es: ¿cuánto va a tardar esto? No sabemos. Usted sabe que todo lo que viene del gobierno puede tomar un poquito más de tiempo. Sobre todo cuando hay varias agencias envueltas en esto, pues seguramente tendremos al FBI, algunas otras agencias locales de policía, también tal vez agencias extranjeras de otros países que tengan que ver con los antecedentes penales de las personas de esos países. Obviamente me imagino que lo harán a través del Departamento de Estado, que son los que manejan los consulados, ¿no?
No me imagino que, por ejemplo, para una persona que viene de Venezuela, el Departamento de Estado notificará al consulado que le corresponde ahora (el consulado de Estados Unidos en Colombia) que averigüe los antecedentes penales de esa persona en Venezuela o en cualquier otro país. Y eso puede tomar tiempo. Como digo, usted sabe, la burocracia es mucha y el gobierno trabaja de pronto un poquito menos rápido que el sector privado. Entonces pienso que esto puede crear una tardanza. ¿Cuánto? Pues no sabemos. Ese es el interrogante para todos: ¿cuánto va a demorar este vetting, que es como lo llama el gobierno —la revisión de antecedentes—? Eso es lo que no sabemos.
Entonces, vuelvo y repito: en términos teóricos es una medida buena que todos queremos, pero en términos prácticos no sé si se nos va a salir de las manos o cuánto tiempo va a tardar. Como dice el cuento: amanecerá y veremos. Nos vamos a quedar sentados.
LOURDES UBIETA:
Básicamente aquí lo que está pasando entonces, doctora, es que ahora al gobierno federal y al Departamento de Ciudadanía e Inmigración le toca hacer lo que no se hizo durante la administración de Biden con estos inmigrantes que entraron ilegalmente a los Estados Unidos sin el proceso de verificación de datos: quién es esta persona, de dónde viene, cuál es su origen… es decir, tener que hacer un proceso que ha debido hacerse antes de que llegaran a los Estados Unidos. ¿Correcto?
ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Eh… es correcto, pero yo no diría que solamente fue algo que ocurrió en la administración de Biden, porque en la administración de Biden sí hubo una entrada de personas —vamos a decir— desbordante por esa frontera, que obviamente nadie quiso eso, nadie lo quiere tampoco. Pero antes de Biden la gente ha entrado por la frontera de los Estados Unidos y México, y hasta ahora entran muchos por la de Canadá, de la misma forma. O sea, que esto no es la primera vez que nosotros tenemos inmigrantes que entran por la frontera y que nunca han sido revisados sus antecedentes.
LOURDES UBIETA:
Por supuesto. Lo que pasa es que los últimos casos han sido precisamente personas que entraron, por ejemplo, el caso del afgano que mató a las dos guardias nacionales, que fueron producto de esa situación que se presentó caótica con la salida de los Estados Unidos de Afganistán —que no es que no salieran, sino cómo salieron— y las consecuencias que eso ha traído. Puntualmente en este caso me refiero a este afgano.
Ahora, yo me pregunto: ¿cómo quedan las solicitudes de asilo? Por ejemplo, las peticiones de asilo que están en curso, porque eso es algo que entiendo está preocupando mucho a la comunidad, en el caso de los cubanos, por ejemplo.
ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Esas peticiones de asilo, por lo menos lo que son asilos afirmativos —que son los que están con USCIS, con Citizenship and Immigration Services— esos asilos van a quedar pausados. No hay decisión.
Los que están con la Corte de Inmigración, que ya es otra agencia, se llama EOIR —Executive Office for Immigration Review— esos, que se llaman asilos defensivos porque están en una corte defendiéndose de una deportación, esos van a continuar.
El mayor problema que tenemos ahora son esos que quedan pausados.
LOURDES UBIETA:
…quiere decir que quedan ilegales. No, no es que quedan ilegales, sencillamente está pausado el proceso. Pero pueden seguir haciendo su vida dentro de Estados Unidos.
ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Sí, pero ahí viene el punto que quería tocar. Vamos un paso adelante: no van a quedar ilegales porque el asilo está pendiente. Mientras el asilo esté pendiente, están protegidos de acumular presencia ilegal; o sea, no van a tener presencia ilegal en los Estados Unidos.
Pero ahora vamos al punto del permiso de trabajo. ¿Van a tener permiso de trabajo?
Y eso es lo que más me preocupa, Lourdes, porque no hay claridad —o por lo menos yo no la he visto— y no tengo ningún documento oficial que yo pueda usar para decirle a un cliente: “Sí, señor, usted va a tener su permiso de trabajo mientras su asilo continúe pendiente.” No. No tengo ese documento.
Lo que tengo son, por ejemplo, informaciones del gobierno que ha dicho que ya no va a haber prórrogas automáticas de los permisos de trabajo de personas que tienen asilo pendiente. Acuérdense que había una prórroga automática donde a la persona se le extendía automáticamente por 180 días, creo que era, después de que aplicaba para la renovación. Ya no hay prórrogas automáticas, uno.
Dos: otra comunicación —un policy alert, una alerta de política del gobierno— donde explicaron que ahora todo el mundo que tenga un asilo pendiente no va a tener derecho al permiso de trabajo solo porque tiene el asilo pendiente. Que van a hacer una revisión y a determinar a quiénes, caso por caso, les van a dar derecho a ese permiso de trabajo.
Eso es lo que tenemos oficialmente.
¿Qué quiere decir?
Que quién sabe si todos esos que van a tener ese asilo pendiente por quién sabe cuánto tiempo, quién sabe si van a tener ese permiso de trabajo.
Esa es mi mayor preocupación, Lourdes, porque es que la gente que está pendiente de un asilo, lo que más le interesa —probablemente, según lo que yo escucho— es obtener ese permiso de trabajo. ¿Por qué? Porque les permite seguir trabajando y asegurando su sustento. Pero si no lo tienen, y se tienen que esperar tres, cuatro, cinco, diez años sin permiso de trabajo, ahí es donde está la situación preocupante.
LOURDES UBIETA:
Por supuesto. Estamos conversando con la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias. Así lo veo yo también, ¿no? Porque en ese proceso… además son miles de solicitudes, cientos de miles de solicitudes. No cien ni doscientos. Es decir, humanamente, ¿cuántas personas hacen falta en esta oficina para atender y revisar exhaustivamente y hacer entrevistas exhaustivas de cada una de estas personas a las que su proceso de asilo queda suspendido temporalmente?
Imaginen ustedes… esto puede tardar años, doctora Martha. Años.
Y mientras tanto, la gente tiene que comer, tiene que pagar la luz, tiene que pagar el agua, tienen que vivir.
ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
No… aquí en la Florida el agua y la luz… y si eso va para arriba, va para arriba. Así es. No, aquí sí vamos a tener que afinar todo, decir: “Venga un momentico, bájele a la burocracia local, bájele a todo eso para poder pagar”, porque mire… nada más estaba viendo estos días que la recolección de basura ya no son quinientos y pico… serán trescientos y pico…
LOURDES UBIETA:
Y la electricidad también para el año que viene… Así es. Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración, gracias por acompañarme.
ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Gracias. Un gran abrazo para usted.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
LOURDES UBIETA:
Well, moving forward with the topics, dear listeners, the United States government, the administration of President Trump has already formally announced what they had warned us was going to happen after the shooting that occurred in Washington the day before Thanksgiving, last week’s Thursday, where an Afghan shot two National Guard members. Well, a few hours later one of them died, a young 20-year-old woman. That unleashed, of course, the fury of President Trump and of the administration. And well, they were announcing that what is USCIS, the Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services, was going to implement new national security measures. Because of this shooting, right?
But it is now a fact that all immigration applications coming from nineteen countries considered high-risk according to the Department of Homeland Security, citing that case of that shooting, well, all immigration applications are going to be suspended. We are talking, dear listeners, about countries such as Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Cuba, and Venezuela.
And that list is based on this presidential proclamation from June that imposed partial or total restrictions on the entry of citizens from these countries, and now it is completely suspended. One wonders: how do the applications, for example, of asylum of these people who are in the United States end up? From Cuba and Venezuela specifically, right? Because they are the ones we see closer. Attorney Martha Arias is with us at this hour, immigration attorney. Attorney, how good to greet you. Welcome to your home, Radio Libre.
ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Thank you very much, Lourdes. A pleasure for me to be with you. Also greetings to everyone and thank you for inviting me once again to your program.
LOURDES UBIETA:
I am happy to have you here, attorney, so that you can help us understand what is going to happen now. Because in the document it specifies that those who fall under those criteria that we were mentioning will have to undergo an exhaustive review process that may include an interview or a new interview to evaluate all threats against national security and public safety. How does it seem to you and how is this going to operate, attorney?
ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
This is—this is one of those situations where theoretically we would all agree with a procedure of review of the criminal background of people, right? I mean, I think that as citizens of the United States, inhabitants of this community, we want the government to know and help us with that security of monitoring who enters our country and who is applying for asylum, so that the person is not a terrorist, a person from any criminal organization. Obviously, we all want that, right? I mean, theoretically, it is something that I think all citizens would want.
In practical terms, it seems to me that the difficult thing is the application of this in practical form, because as you correctly said, Lourdes, the decision-making on all of those asylum cases is going to be paralyzed or paused, particularly those who entered in recent years and those who entered especially through the border without inspection or those who entered with parole, right, and who belong to one of these 19 countries or belong, well, to any of these countries.
So, what does pausing the decision-making mean? That they are not going to approve nor deny any of these cases until a review of them is done. Obviously, these are cases that either already had an interview or are about to or are going to have an interview, and after the interview nothing is going to happen. The interviews will continue being given; that is, the one who has not had an interview will be given an interview. The point is that no decision is going to be made until their criminal records are reviewed exhaustively.
So the next question is: how long is this going to take? We do not know. You know that everything that, especially what comes from the government, can take a little more time. Especially when there are several agencies involved in this; surely we would have the FBI, some other local police agencies, also maybe foreign agencies of other countries that have to do with the police or criminal background of the people from those countries. Obviously, I imagine they will do it through the Department of State, which is the one that manages the consulates, right?
I do not imagine that, for example, for a person who comes from Venezuela, the Department of State, well, will notify the consulate that corresponds now—that is the U.S. consulate in Colombia—to investigate the criminal records of that person in Venezuela or in any other country. And that can take time, as I say. You know, the bureaucracy is a lot and the government works maybe a little less fast, I would say, than the private sector. So I think this can create a delay. How much? Well, we do not know. That is the question for everyone. How long this vetting—which is how the government calls it, the review of background—how long is that going to take? That is what we do not know.
So, I repeat again: in theoretical terms it is a good measure that we all want, I mean in theoretical terms, but in practical terms I think that I do not know if this is going to get out of our hands or how long. Here, as the saying goes, well, dawn will tell. We will stay seated.
LOURDES UBIETA:
Basically what is happening here then, attorney, is that now the federal government and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have to do what was not done during the Biden administration with these immigrants who entered illegally into the United States without the process of data verification, of who is this person who is entering the country, what is coming, what is it, where does it come from, what is its origin… That is, having to do a process that should have been done before they arrived in the United States, correct?
ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Eh… that is correct, but I would not say that it was only something that occurred in the Biden administration, because the Biden administration did have an entry of people, let’s say, overflowing through that border. Which, obviously, nobody wanted that; nobody wants that either. But before Biden, people have entered through the border of the United States and Mexico, and even now many enter through the one with Canada, in the same way. So this is not the first time that we have immigrants who enter through the border and whose backgrounds have never been reviewed.
LOURDES UBIETA:
Of course. What happens is that the latest cases have been precisely people who entered—for example, the case of the Afghan who killed the two National Guard members—that were the product of that chaotic situation with the departure of the United States from Afghanistan, which is not that they should not have left, but how they left, and the consequences that this has brought. Specifically in this case I refer to this Afghan.
Now, I wonder how the asylum applications end up, for example the asylum petitions that are underway, because that is something that I understand is worrying the community a lot, in the case of Cubans, for example.
ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Those asylum petitions, at least what are affirmative asylums—which are those that are with USCIS, with Citizenship and Immigration Services—those asylums are going to be paused. There is no decision.
Those that are with the Immigration Court, which is already another agency, is called EOIR—Executive Office for Immigration Review—those that are called defensive asylums because they are in a court defending themselves from a deportation, those are going to continue.
The biggest problem that we have now are those that remain paused.
LOURDES UBIETA:
…you mean they remain illegal? No, it is not that they remain illegal, it is simply that the process is paused. They can continue doing their life within the United States.
ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Yes, but there comes the point I wanted to touch. There comes—we are going one step forward. They are not going to remain illegal because the asylum is pending. As long as the asylum is pending, they are protected from accumulating unlawful presence. Or rather, they are not going to have unlawful presence in the United States.
But now we go to the point of the work permit. Are they going to have a work permit?
And that is what worries me the most, Lourdes, because there is no clarity—or at least I have not seen it—and I do not have any official document that I can use to tell a client: “Yes, sir, you are going to have your work permit while your asylum continues pending.” No. I do not have that document.
What I do have are, for example, government communications that have said that there will no longer be automatic extensions of work permits for people who have pending asylum. Remember that there used to be an automatic extension where the person would have it automatically extended for 180 days, I think it was, after applying for the renewal. There are no longer automatic extensions, number one.
Number two: another communication—a policy alert, a political alert from the government—where they explained that now everyone who has a pending asylum is not going to have the right to a work permit just because they have the pending asylum. That they are going to do a review and determine who, case by case, is going to have the right to that work permit.
That is what we have officially.
What does that mean?
That who knows if all those who are going to have that pending asylum for who knows how long—who knows if they are going to have that work permit.
That is my biggest concern, Lourdes, because people who are waiting for an asylum, what interests them the most—probably, according to what I hear—is to have that work permit. Why? Because it allows them to continue working and earning their living. But if they do not have it, and they have to wait three, four, five, ten years without a work permit, that is where the concerning situation is.
LOURDES UBIETA:
Of course. We are speaking with immigration attorney Martha Arias. That is how I see it too, right? Because in that process… because it is also thousands of applications, hundreds of thousands of applications. Not one hundred nor two hundred. I mean, humanly, how many people are needed in this office to attend to and review exhaustively and do exhaustive interviews for each one of these people whose asylum process is temporarily suspended?
Imagine that… it can take years, attorney Martha. Years. And meanwhile, people have to eat, have to pay electricity, have to pay water, they have to live.
ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
No… here in Florida the water and electricity… And if that goes up, it goes up. That’s right. No, here we are going to have to refine everything, to say: “Come here for a moment, lower the local bureaucracy, lower all of that so we can pay,” because look… I was just seeing the other day that the garbage collection is no longer five-hundred-and-some… it will be three-hundred-and-some…
LOURDES UBIETA:
And electricity too for next year… That’s right. Martha Arias, immigration attorney, thank you for joining me.
ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Thank you. A big hug for you.
