The affirmative asylum system in the United States is designed to function as a linear legal pathway in which applicants file Form I-589, attend biometrics appointments, appear for interviews, and receive decisions within a reasonable period. In principle, time is intended to act as a neutral administrative mechanism. In practice, prolonged interview delays have turned time into a central force that shapes the evidentiary, economic, and psychological dimensions of an applicant’s case. This paper compares the intended structure of the asylum process with the lived outcomes created by extensive interview backlogs. Drawing on work completed at the International Rescue Committee (IRC) in Atlanta, this analysis argues that the formal design of asylum law and the realities generated by delay operate on different timelines, producing consequences the policy framework does not anticipate.
Existing scholarship has long documented how extended asylum adjudication timelines produce predictable harms. Rebecca Hamlin argues that prolonged delays destabilize applicants’ lives and undermine the legitimacy of the asylum system.1 Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz, and Philip Schrag similarly show that uncertainty and long waits exacerbate trauma and make it more difficult for asylum seekers to present consistent testimony.2 Policy research from the Migration Policy Institute attributes today’s backlog to structural staffing shortages and shifting adjudicatory priorities within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Together, these studies provide an academic foundation for understanding how interview delays shape applicants’ experiences, reflecting many of the patterns identified in this analysis.
While the affirmative asylum process is designed around a predictable administrative sequence, interview scheduling practices reveal how quickly that structure breaks down in practice. Affirmative asylum interviews were originally conducted in the order applications were received. In 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reinstated the “last in, first out” (LIFO) interview scheduling system, prioritizing newer filings over older ones. The stated goal was to deter meritless filings by resolving recent cases quickly. However, legal scholarship shows that LIFO did not operate as intended. Hamlin describes LIFO as producing a two-track adjudication regime, in which new filings move quickly while older cases remain stalled. Migration Policy Institute research similarly finds that LIFO has not reduced the overall backlog but instead redirected limited adjudicatory resources away from long-pending applicants.
In practice, LIFO created a dual timeline. Applicants who filed recently may receive interviews within months, while thousands who filed before the policy change remain in multiyear stagnation. Asylum offices themselves acknowledge that pre-LIFO backlogs often remain untouched through USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Engagement updates. The formal policy timeline envisions predictable progression, while the backlog timeline produces uncertainty and prolonged inactivity. This structural contradiction illustrates how efficiency measures designed to improve processing fail to produce consistent outcomes, particularly for long-pending applicants.
These delays also interact with asylum law’s assumptions about evidence and credibility. The REAL ID Act of 2005 requires applicants to present detailed, internally consistent testimony and to provide corroborating evidence when available. The legal framework assumes that applicants can reasonably access evidence and accurately recall events at the time of interview. Extended delays complicate both assumptions. Applicants interviewed years after filing must recall precise dates, sequences, and details of traumatic experiences. Research in psychiatry and refugee studies demonstrates that trauma and the passage of time affect memory in ways asylum adjudication rarely accounts for.3
Evidence collection is similarly affected by delay. Letters from witnesses, medical documentation, political membership records, and police reports are often easier to obtain shortly after flight and significantly more difficult to secure several years later. The asylum system is structured around timely evidence submission, but prolonged backlogs reshape the evidentiary landscape in ways unrelated to credibility or claim strength. As a result, delay itself becomes a source of disadvantage, weakening cases through procedural time rather than substantive merit.
Economic stability represents another area where policy assumptions diverge from lived experience. The asylum employment authorization clock is intended to allow applicants to work legally after their case has been pending for a defined period. Regulations permit applicants to request an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) after 150 days and to receive one after 180 days, provided no applicant-caused delays occur, as outlined by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. In theory, the clock promotes orderly processing while discouraging premature work authorization.
In practice, the asylum clock is frequently misunderstood, inadvertently paused, or affected by procedural barriers such as biometric rescheduling or notices that applicants never receive. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy explicitly states that the clock stops when an applicant is deemed to have caused a delay. Many applicants file without legal representation and are unaware of how easily the clock can be stopped, resulting in extended periods without lawful income. National research reflects these realities. The American Immigration Council and Migration Policy Institute document how delays in work authorization increase risks of housing instability, food insecurity, and exploitative labor conditions for asylum seekers, as documented by the Migration Policy Institute. These findings situate the economic struggles described here within broader national trends.
Some observers argue that longer timelines allow applicants and legal representatives additional time to strengthen their cases. On paper, extended preparation periods might support more complete documentation, expert reports, or corroborating evidence. In practice, however, this time is not strategic but compulsory. Many applicants use delays to gather documents that were inaccessible immediately after fleeing persecution or to secure legal representation after filing pro se to meet the one-year deadline. These adaptations respond to systemic delay rather than reflecting benefits of thoughtful policy design.
Backlogs also transform the role of legal service providers. In theory, providers support applicants through a straightforward sequence of filings and interviews. Under prolonged delay conditions, their responsibilities expand substantially. At IRC Atlanta, routine tasks include assembling evidence packets well in advance of scheduled interviews, drafting declarations that must remain accurate despite multi-year gaps, updating addresses to prevent missed notices, preparing work authorization renewals amid shifting processing times, and explaining the implications of LIFO and the asylum clock. Legal service providers must anticipate risks created by administrative delay, including unexpected interview notices or outdated documentation, effectively operating as long-term case managers rather than short-term legal preparers.
Comparing the formal design of the affirmative asylum system with the lived outcomes produced by prolonged interview delays reveals a persistent misalignment between policy intent and practice. The system envisions timely interviews, stable evidence collection, consistent testimony, and a clear path to lawful employment. Backlogs disrupt these assumptions, constraining economic stability, complicating credibility assessments, and reshaping the responsibilities of legal service providers. Viewed in an international context, these delays are not inevitable. Canada’s asylum system, while also affected by backlogs, generally provides earlier access to work authorization and clearer procedural timelines, reducing some of the economic and evidentiary pressures created by prolonged waiting. Recognizing how administrative time itself produces legal harm is essential for meaningful reform. An asylum system designed to protect people fleeing persecution cannot rely on timelines that undermine fairness, destabilize applicants, and erode the integrity of adjudication.
- Rebecca Hamlin, Let Me Be a Refugee: Administrative Justice and the Politics of Asylum in the United States, Canada, and Australia (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014). ↩︎
- Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew I. Schoenholtz, and Philip G. Schrag, Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication and Proposals for Reform (New York: New York University Press, 2009). ↩︎
- Jane Herlihy, Kate Gleeson, and Stuart Turner, “What Assumptions About Memory Lead to Unfairness in Asylum Hearings?” European Journal of Psychotraumatology 1 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v1i0.544 ↩︎
Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: Hands holding US Flags, Image sourced from RawPixel | CC License, no changes made