We have two new problems in the asylum system, a dangerous combination that started last month: The asylum application now costs $102 to file, but asylum seekers are no longer allowed to apply for the right to work until a full year passes after submitting their application. My clients are officially stuck.
One of them is nine months pregnant. She is raising two young children alongside her husband in California while waiting to learn whether her family will be allowed to stay in the United States. They fled Mexico after her husband was kidnapped by members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel. Returning to Mexico is not an option. Like many asylum seekers, my client did what the law requires: She came to the United States seeking refuge and applied for protection.
Starting May 29, a Department of Homeland Security rule instituted the first-of-its-kind annual asylum fee. Until now, it was free to file. My client and all asylum seekers are now required to pay $102 per person, per year, just to keep an asylum application alive. For her family of four, that is more than $400 annually.
And here is where many applicants will face the even greater hardship: In addition to the cost to file the application, asylum applicants will not be allowed to legally work in the U.S. The rule extends the waiting period to apply for a work permit application from five months to 365 days. Then, the waiting period for the employment authorization begins, which can be up to a year. Most of my clients are now asking the difficult question: How can I pay for my application if I am not allowed to apply for a work permit?
A $100 fee may sound modest. A delay for a work permit application may seem manageable. But together, they create a system that demands payment from vulnerable people the government has made legally unable to work.
For people fleeing persecution, applying for asylum is a legal right grounded in both U.S. and international law, one that has long reflected this country’s commitment to offering refuge to those in danger. This system has been free since its inception after the second world war.
For seven years I represented asylum seekers at the Los Angeles LGBT Center. My clients came to the U.S. to live safely and affirm their truest selves. We see how difficult it is to make ends meet when clients are denied the right to work and are afraid to apply for immigration relief. Asylum seekers wait years in legal limbo, unable to support themselves without the right to work, often relying on informal networks, unstable housing and survival work.
Even under the preexisting rules, the system was barely tenable. Recent changes threaten to break it entirely. Immigration courts face a backlog of more than 3.3 million cases, including more than 2.3 million people waiting on asylum claims. Applicants often wait years for their claims to be heard. During that time, they are expected to survive without stable income, without certainty and often without support.
And even after years of waiting, relief is far from guaranteed. Many applicants endure prolonged hardship for only a slim chance of success. Adding new financial and procedural barriers on top of those odds does not improve the system. It ensures that fewer people will even try.
The United States has historically stood in solidarity with most countries in the world in one important way: It has not charged people fees to apply for humanitarian asylum. The modern global refugee system was shaped in the aftermath of World War II, grounded in the principle that applications for protection should be accessible to all refugees.
This rule moves us further from this tradition. Supporters argue that fees and delays are necessary to reduce strain on the system or discourage weak claims. But policies that make survival itself the barrier to entry do not distinguish between strong and weak cases. They distinguish between those who can endure prolonged poverty and those who cannot.
For people like my clients, the choice becomes impossible: work illegally to survive, abandon a lawful asylum claim for the entire family or go without basic necessities while waiting.
None of these options reflect a system committed to fairness or the rule of law.
When the government takes away someone’s ability to work, even the smallest fee becomes insurmountable. And when that happens, the asylum system does not just become harder to navigate. It becomes impossible.
Tess Feldman teaches at the Asylum Law Clinic at Southwestern Law School and is a supervising attorney at the Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic, where she represents immigrant families, refugees and asylum seekers. She is the founding attorney of Drimolegal PC.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
The article argues that a new Department of Homeland Security policy, which both imposes an annual per-person fee to keep an asylum application pending and extends the wait to apply for a work permit to a full year, creates a dangerous “paywall” that forces asylum seekers to come up with money while being legally barred from working.
-
To make the impact concrete, the piece highlights a family that fled cartel violence in Mexico and followed U.S. law by applying for asylum, yet now faces hundreds of dollars in recurring fees even as the adults are prohibited from seeking employment authorization, illustrating what the article describes as an impossible financial bind.
-
The column contends that even before these changes, the system left many asylum seekers in prolonged legal limbo, with immigration court backlogs stretching for years and applicants struggling to meet basic needs while they waited for decisions on their claims.[2]
-
Building on this, the article maintains that layering new financial and procedural barriers onto an already overburdened process will not improve adjudication quality but will instead deter many people from filing or maintaining asylum claims at all, particularly those in the greatest economic distress.
-
The piece underscores that seeking asylum is a legal right rooted in U.S. statute and international refugee law, and it stresses that applications for humanitarian protection in the United States have historically been free of charge, reflecting post–World War II norms that protection should be accessible regardless of wealth.[2]
-
In that context, the author argues that introducing an annual fee moves the United States away from the global refugee system’s founding principles and from the country’s self-image as a refuge for people fleeing persecution, effectively conditioning access to protection on the ability to pay.
-
The article further insists that the combination of fees and delayed work authorization does not meaningfully distinguish between strong and weak claims; instead, it separates those who can endure prolonged poverty from those who cannot, pushing many toward working without authorization, abandoning lawful claims, or going without basic necessities.
-
As additional support, the piece points to broader critiques that cite the government’s own regulatory analysis on employment authorization reform, which estimates extremely large aggregate losses in wages for asylum applicants under stricter work-permit rules, to argue that officials know the policy will deepen poverty among people already in precarious situations.[1]
-
Overall, the column frames the new rules as transforming the asylum system from one that is merely difficult to navigate into one that is practically impossible for many applicants, undermining both fairness and the rule of law by making basic survival the threshold for exercising a legal right.
Different views on the topic
-
The Department of Homeland Security’s employment authorization rule explains that tightening and delaying work authorization for asylum applicants is designed to reduce incentives for people to file non-meritorious or fraudulent asylum claims primarily to gain quick access to U.S. jobs, thereby preserving limited adjudicative resources for cases believed to be more likely to have merit.[1]
-
In its Federal Register analysis, the government argues that longer wait times and stricter eligibility for work permits are a necessary response to high volumes of asylum filings and administrative strain, asserting that these measures will help manage caseloads and promote a more orderly, sustainable system even as officials acknowledge substantial projected losses in earnings for asylum applicants.[1]
-
The rule also emphasizes aligning work-authorization policies with existing statutory requirements and enforcement priorities, including restricting employment authorization for individuals who entered without inspection or who have certain criminal histories, which supporters describe as essential to maintaining the integrity and credibility of the asylum process.[1]
-
Some policymakers and commentators who favor these reforms contend that relatively rapid access to legal employment can function as a “pull factor” for migration by people who may not qualify for asylum, and they argue that a 365-day wait to apply for work authorization is a reasonable deterrent that still allows applicants with viable claims to work lawfully once they have established a stronger foothold in the legal process.[1]
-
The regulatory preamble acknowledges large aggregate losses in compensation for asylum applicants but asserts that these costs are justified by anticipated benefits, including discouraging frivolous applications, reducing incentives for irregular migration, and allowing adjudicators to focus more effectively on what supporters view as the strongest claims for protection.[1]
-
Additionally, proponents cited in policy debates argue that shifting more of the financial burden of the asylum system to users, through fees and stricter access to work authorization, can lessen the need for taxpayer-funded subsidies for immigration adjudication, while still preserving a path to protection for those who meet the legal criteria.[1]
