DHS Secretary Ratifies Controversial ‘Global Asylum Rule’ Amid Legal Battle

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is taking aggressive steps to fortify the legal standing of one of the previous administration’s most restrictive immigration policies. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem has formally ratified the approval and issuance of the controversial “Global Asylum Rule,” a final rule aimed at drastically tightening criteria for individuals seeking humanitarian protection in the United States. The ratification notice was published in the Federal Register on Wednesday.

The rule, originally introduced by then-Acting Secretary Chad Wolf and the Department of Justice, was finalized on December 11, 2020, and was set to take effect in January 2021. However, its implementation was swiftly blocked by a nationwide injunction issued by U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco. The injunction was based on the legal authority of the rule’s initial issuers, questioning the legitimacy of Mr. Wolf’s appointment at the time.

Secretary Noem’s ratification is a legal maneuver described as being taken “out of an abundance of caution.” The primary goal is to provide an independent, valid legal basis for the rule, thereby resolving any previous legal questions regarding the authority of the original acting officials. According to the DHS, this act of approval by a properly appointed Secretary is intended to “cure any defect in the Rule’s promulgation” and relates back to the original 2020 approval date.

Despite this assertive legal action, the Secretary acknowledged that the ratification does not immediately put the rule into effect. She admitted that some provisions of the final rule cannot be fully implemented due to subsequent amendments in federal regulations and, most significantly, the ongoing court orders that currently enjoin the rule. In essence, the DHS is legally shoring up the foundation of the policy, but the courts still prevent its application.

The voluminous, 419-page rule introduces sweeping changes to the asylum process, making it significantly harder for migrants, particularly those arriving at the U.S. border, to establish a credible claim. Asylum seekers must prove in their initial screening that they would face “severe harm” if returned to their country—a major escalation from the standard that only requires a confirmed “fear” of persecution or harm.

According to this rule, individuals who fail to meet this heightened standard face expedited removal. The rule grants Immigration Judges the power to summarily reject or pretermit asylum applications deemed weak, denied, or fraudulent, potentially without granting the applicant a full hearing. It includes provisions to bar individuals found to have submitted fraudulent claims from applying for other forms of immigration relief, including future visas and Green Cards.

Immigration attorney Khagendra GC warns that the rule effectively makes it difficult to pass the initial screening at the border, removes established grounds for asylum, and compromises the due process rights of applicants by allowing judges to dismiss claims without a full opportunity for a hearing. He suggests that most applicants traveling through a third country to reach the U.S. would likely have their claims denied under this policy.