USCIS Must Give 21-Day Notice for Minors’ Asylum Interviews Following Court Order

Judge Orders USCIS to Provide 21-Day Notice for Minors’ Asylum Interviews

A recent court order requires the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to give unaccompanied child asylum applicants and their legal representatives at least 21 days’ written notice before their interviews. This temporary restraining order, issued on October 30, 2026, by U.S. District Judge Brendan A. Hurson, aims to restore scheduling protections for these vulnerable individuals. The order specifically applies to unaccompanied children seeking asylum through USCIS and does not affect adult applicants or all immigration court hearings.

The lawsuit, The Door v. Edlow, was filed on October 15, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiffs include several organizations that support immigrant children. They argued that the agency’s previous policy of shortened notice periods and strict rescheduling rules hindered children’s ability to prepare their asylum cases effectively.

Restoring Interview Scheduling Protections

The judge’s order suspends the policy that required “exceptional circumstances” to reschedule an interview. Under the restored practice, a child can request one rescheduling as a matter of course. Subsequent requests can be granted for good cause. When assessing good cause, USCIS must consider factors such as the ability of legal counsel to attend, scheduling conflicts, the time needed to gather evidence, the child’s capacity to appear, and whether the notice provided was adequate. The agency and other defendants are required to report their compliance with this order within 48 hours.

It is important to note that this order does not automatically postpone every scheduled appointment, nor does it grant asylum or end removal proceedings. Families, guardians, and lawyers who receive a short-notice appointment should keep the notice and follow the agency’s current rescheduling process rather than simply missing the interview.

Connection to Child Protection Law

Judge Hurson determined that the shortened notice policy likely conflicts with protections for unaccompanied children established by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. He reasoned that these protections include adequate preparation time before an interview, especially when working with an attorney. The judge also concluded that the rescheduling policy might violate the Administrative Procedure Act. These are preliminary findings as the lawsuit moves forward.

The judge emphasized that “An unaccompanied child only has one chance to have a non-adversarial asylum adjudication.” The law grants an asylum officer initial jurisdiction over an unaccompanied child’s claim, even after deportation proceedings have begun. If an interview does not resolve the claim or if the child misses it, the case can move to immigration court, where a Department of Homeland Security trial attorney will oppose the claim. The interview is a critical opportunity to present an asylum claim, though it does not guarantee asylum.

USCIS guidance for minor children applying for asylum on their own outlines interviews that consider a child’s age, language skills, background, and maturity. Officers may inquire about parental consent for the application and can delay a case if more information is needed. A child can use this process if they are under 18, lack lawful immigration status, and do not have a parent or legal guardian in the United States available to provide care and custody.

Allegations of Rapid Scheduling and Overlapping Appointments

The organizations filing the lawsuit stated that interview scheduling had become increasingly rapid in 2026, particularly since July. Lawyers reported receiving as little as 18 hours’ notice, with referrals issued within 24 hours of interviews. Some attorneys mentioned receiving phone calls in September scheduling a child for the next business day. The complaint also noted that children in federal custody could only attend interviews virtually.

An August 21 policy reportedly limited rescheduling to “exceptional circumstances.” Attorneys claimed that requests were denied or ignored, even when multiple children’s interviews were scheduled for the same time. The complaint also challenges a requirement to submit supplemental asylum evidence 14 days before an interview. In some instances, a child might receive an appointment notice after this evidence submission deadline had already passed.

The six plaintiff organizations reported receiving over 600 interview notices for their clients since August 1, 2026. This number represents their clients only, not the total across the country. Immigrant advocacy groups like Immigrant Defenders Law Center and the Amica Center represent thousands of children.

The complaint detailed how attorneys were expected to manage simultaneous interviews, which reduced the time available to prepare children who could be sent back to the countries they fled. The plaintiffs also contested a separate directive from the Executive Office for Immigration Review that requires detained unaccompanied children’s cases to be completed by January 31, 2027. This directive limits continuances to three weeks, regardless of the circumstances. Judge Hurson’s temporary order does not affect this January deadline.

The plaintiffs in the case include the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, The Door, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, and Jewish Family and Community Services Pittsburgh. Their legal counsel includes the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, National Center for Youth Law, National Immigration Law Center, and Trial Impact Project.

Defendants named in the suit include agency Director Joseph Edlow, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, acting immigration-court director Sirce Owen, and Attorney General Todd Blanche. The Department of Homeland Security, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the Department of Justice are also listed as defendants. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the 2008 trafficking law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee.

When the suit was filed, an agency spokesperson described it as “another meritless effort” to obstruct immigration law enforcement. The administration stated that children’s cases were not being fast-tracked and that officials were prioritizing timely case completion. The plaintiffs seek to have the interview policies set aside, the prior notice practice reinstated, one rescheduling allowed as a right, and a good-cause standard used for later requests. They also want the deadline for detained children’s cases invalidated.

Temporary Order Expiration

The temporary order is in effect for 14 days and is scheduled to expire at noon on Friday, November 13, 2026, unless Judge Hurson extends or replaces it. He has the option to extend the order, issue a preliminary injunction, or allow it to expire. The government has the right to appeal and can contest the claims as the lawsuit proceeds. The next phase of the legal process may involve a ruling on whether to issue a longer-lasting injunction. The October 30 order provides temporary relief and does not resolve the broader lawsuit.

Frequently Asked Questions