The Trump administration has reinstated a policy requiring immigration courts to complete adjudications of asylum applications within 180 days, according to a new memorandum issued by Sirce E. Owen, Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The memo, dated February 3, 2025, reinstates Policy Memorandum (PM) 19-05, Guidance Regarding the Adjudication of Asylum Applications Consistent with INA § 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), which was originally implemented on November 19, 2018, during the Trump administration but later rescinded by the Biden administration on April 18, 2022.
The policy, in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), emphasizes the timely adjudication of asylum cases to ensure that applicants with valid claims receive protection without undue delays, while unmeritorious claims are resolved promptly. The memorandum clarifies that asylum applications should be adjudicated within 180 days of filing, barring exceptional circumstances.
This provision directs the Attorney General to establish procedures ensuring that asylum applications are adjudicated within 180 days of filing, absent “exceptional circumstances.” Immigration Judges are required to adjudicate asylum applications within 180 days unless exceptional circumstances warrant an extension. The policy further emphasizes that delays caused by the applicant, such as continuances, do not count toward the 180-day timeline.
Additionally, the provision governing employment authorization for asylum applicants states that applicants cannot receive work permits until at least 180 days after filing their asylum application. This provision implicitly reinforces the expectation that asylum claims should be resolved within the same timeframe.

The memorandum clarifies that while continuances in immigration court are subject to a “good cause” standard, they do not automatically justify exceeding the 180-day adjudication deadline. To extend the timeline, applicants must demonstrate “exceptional circumstances,” which represent a higher standard than “good cause.” Examples of exceptional circumstances include serious illness, battery, or extreme cruelty, as defined elsewhere in the INA.
The reinstated policy is expected to have significant implications for asylum seekers and immigration courts. By prioritizing timely adjudications, the policy aims to reduce the backlog of asylum cases, which has grown substantially in recent years. However, critics argue that the 180-day timeline may limit applicants’ ability to gather evidence and prepare their cases adequately, particularly in complex situations. By ensuring that asylum applications are processed swiftly, EOIR aims to deter frivolous claims while providing timely relief to legitimate asylum seekers.
The memorandum also highlights the need for immigration judges to distinguish between the standards for continuances and exceptional circumstances. While continuances may be granted for a variety of reasons under the “good cause” standard, only exceptional circumstances will justify exceeding the 180-day adjudication deadline.
The Biden administration had previously rescinded this policy, citing concerns over due process and the complexity of asylum cases. Critics argue that a rigid 180-day timeline may lead to rushed decisions and limit applicants’ ability to gather sufficient evidence for their claims. However, supporters assert that the policy will prevent asylum seekers from exploiting procedural delays to extend their stay in the United States.