Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks $100 Annual Asylum Fee Over Conflicting Government Policies

A federal judge in Maryland has temporarily blocked the new $100 annual asylum application fee, citing contradictory guidance from two federal agencies.

Judge Stephanie Gallagher found that USCIS and EOIR acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” by issuing inconsistent guidance on payment timing and methods. (This means the agencies did not provide a reasonable explanation for their inconsistent actions.)

The judge highlighted the confusion and direct harm caused to asylum seekers by the agencies’ lack of coordination. Some individuals received removal orders before a payment system was in place, which exemplifies the disarray. To illustrate the misalignment, USCIS announced the fee on July 4, with payment notices beginning on October 1, while EOIR proposed a payment portal much later. This staggered implementation resulted in what can be referred to as a ‘policy paradox,’ where different rules run concurrently but overlap insufficiently. Gallagher suspended enforcement of both agencies’ policies nationwide until they agree on consistent, workable procedures, aiming to safeguard applicants from these issues.

“The defendants have not resolved the inconsistency,” she wrote, adding the conflict caused “irreparable harm” to asylum applicants. Gallagher said she would consider lifting the stay once agencies set uniform policies detailing deadlines, payment methods, and consequences.

The $100 annual fee, introduced under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, applies each year as long as an asylum case is pending. Previously, asylum applications carried no fee. The fee introduction marks a significant shift, aimed at addressing financial constraints on the immigration system.

For decades, asylum policies did not include application fees, reflecting a commitment to humanitarian relief.

The suspension follows a Maryland class-action lawsuit filed by the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), which alleges that the government wrongly applied the new fee retroactively. ASAP also says the fee rollout caused widespread confusion among asylum seekers.

One ASAP member, a Russian national who applied for asylum in 2022, said he was “very worried” because he had “received no instructions” about how or when to pay—reflecting the broad confusion referenced earlier.

USCIS began sending payment notices on October 1, giving applicants 30 days to pay, with first payments due by November 30.

The lawsuit notes that many asylum seekers are unable to afford legal representation. “They must choose between feeding their families or paying,” said Susan Pelletier, the plaintiffs’ attorney, at Tuesday’s hearing.

Several testimonies in the lawsuit illustrate how the policy creates real risks for asylum seekers.

A woman from Honduras, as reported by CNN, fears deportation because she cannot afford to pay, and, when notified, had no option for payment. This fear doesn’t just threaten her legal status but her safety and the unity of her family, as deportation could mean returning to life-threatening circumstances and separation from her loved ones. A Nigerian asylum seeker learned of the new rule only via social media and is concerned that missing a payment could jeopardize his pending case, underscoring the confusion and the critical risk to his ability to maintain a stable livelihood, according to CNN.
These narratives underscore the breadth of impact, placing not just legal status but their fundamental human capabilities at risk.

In response, EOIR created an online payment portal. The office will notify affected individuals and credit any payments made through other systems.

However, ASAP states that these actions don’t address the core problem: USCIS and EOIR are still applying the new fee retroactively and providing contradictory guidance, with conflicting deadlines. In one case, a judge denied an asylum claim due to nonpayment, despite the absence of a payment system.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Justice Department attorney Zareen Iqbal rejected retroactive enforcement claims. She said the fee aims to help manage the asylum backlog, likening it to “a property tax.” The Justice Department acknowledged some applicants faced difficulties. Iqbal said she would contact the plaintiffs and USCIS to resolve reported issues. The analogy to a “property tax” raises questions about its empirical support—what evidence suggests that a $100 annual fee will effectively reduce the backlog? Providing projected revenues from the fee versus current backlog figures would help assess the validity of this claim.

Judge Gallagher’s order halts the annual asylum fee nationwide and compels both agencies to agree on clear procedures. The ruling underscores that the core impact is the harm and uncertainty created for asylum seekers by inconsistent and premature rules—uncertain payment methods, unclear deadlines, and the threat of penalties when compliance was not feasible.