Asylum

BRUSSELS — The European Union is expanding its powers to track, raid and deport migrants to “return hubs” in third countries in Africa and elsewhere, quietly adopting tactics of the Trump administration that have drawn public criticism across the 27-nation bloc.

The EU continues to tighten migration policies after right-wing parties took power in some countries in 2024. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, from the center-right European People’s Party coalition, has said that the new measures will prevent a repeat of the 2015 crisis caused by Syria’s civil war, when about 1 million people arrived to seek asylum.

“We have learned the lessons of the past. And today, we are better equipped,” Von der Leyen has said. The new policies, known as the Pact on Migration and Asylum, go into effect June 12.

Far-right parties in Europe have praised the deportation policies of President Trump and called for the EU to adopt a similar approach. Human rights groups warn that authorities are already illegally blocking migrants at EU borders and hollowing out their legal protections.

Italy provides a model

The EU already spends millions of dollars to deter migrants before they reach its shores, and has supported tens of thousands of Africans returning home, voluntarily or by force.

What’s envisioned now is an expansion of what Italy has created under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her “tough on migration” stance. It operates two migrant detention centers for rejected asylum seekers in Albania. One currently holds at least 90 migrants, said lawmaker Rachele Scarpa, who said that she found people confused and scared during a recent visit.

In addition, Meloni’s Cabinet has approved an anti-immigration package that would allow the navy to halt vessels in international waters for up to six months if they are deemed a threat to public order, return intercepted migrants to countries of origin or third countries and speed up the deportation of foreign nationals convicted of crimes.

An “informal group” of EU nations including Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Greece are pursuing deportation center agreements, said Bernd Parusel, a researcher at the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies.

Kenya is one country they are speaking with, said Tineke Strik, a Dutch member of the European Parliament. Whether consciously or not, the plan is similar to Trump’s deals with nations like El Salvador to take in deported migrants, she said.

Other countries are exploring similar ideas. Sweden’s migration minister has said the conservative ruling coalition approves setting up hubs outside Europe, especially for Afghan and Syrian asylum seekers.

Competing views

During the recent Winter Olympics in Italy, protests erupted over the deployment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to provide security to the U.S. delegation. But others in Europe have praised ICE’s actions in Trump’s deportation campaign and called for setting up similar deportation-focused police units.

In 2024, Belgium passed a law allowing the EU border service Frontex to operate in the country, stoking fears among activists that it could join in on raids.

But Frontex’s mandate covers only borders, said spokesperson Chris Borowski, and the current role in voluntary or involuntary returns for the service includes “coordinating flights, helping with travel documents and making sure fundamental rights are respected throughout the process.”

The European Commission has declined requests to take a position on U.S. immigration policies.

In Britain, which left the EU several years ago, the center-left Labor Party government has made curbing unauthorized immigration a key focus.

In February, the Home Office said that almost 60,000 people had been deported since the government was elected in July 2024. It said 9,000 arrests were made of people working without permission in 2025, up by more than half from the year before.

Raids, surveillance and ‘pushbacks’

Under the principle of non-refoulement in EU and international law, a person can’t be returned to a country where they would face persecution.

But European immigration enforcement tactics include so-called pushbacks, where people trying to cross into the EU are forced back across a border without access to asylum procedures.

Authorities in Europe carry out an average of 221 pushbacks a day, according to a February report by a group of humanitarian organizations. More than 80,000 pushbacks were recorded in 2025, the report said, mostly in Italy, Poland, Bulgaria and Latvia.

“Men, women and children — including individuals in critical medical condition — are routinely subjected to beatings, attacks by police dogs, forced stripping, forced river crossings and theft of personal belongings,” according to the report.

European agents are brutalizing migrants just like in the U.S., said Flor Didden, migration policy expert at the Belgian human rights group 11.11.11. Some, like in Greece, even wear masks, as ICE agents typically do.

“The images are shocking and the outrage is justified,” he said of the U.S. “But where is that same moral clarity when European border authorities abuse, rob and let people die?”

Weakening of migrant protections seen

The groups also have recorded an expansion of surveillance technology like drones, thermal cameras and satellites to monitor people on the move.

Other human rights groups warn of a weakening of legal protections.

The EU’s new migration regulations allow for more police raids in private homes and public spaces and more use of surveillance and racial profiling, said a letter to EU institutions in February from 88 nonprofit groups including the Brussels-based Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants.

“We cannot be outraged by ICE in the United States while also supporting these practices in Europe,” said the platform’s director, Michele LeVoy.

Olivia Sundberg Diez, EU migration advocate for Amnesty International, said Europe retains more protections for vulnerable migrants than the United States does but shares much of the political momentum toward harsher policies.

“There’s a level of institutions’ and courts’ independence and human rights compliance in Europe that you can’t disregard,” she said. “But the fundamental political impulse is the same, and I worry that the human consequences will be the same.”

McNeil and Zampano write for the Associated Press and reported from Brussels and Rome, respectively. AP writers Elena Becatoros in Athens, Jill Lawless in London, Paolo Santalucia in Rome, Claudia Ciobanu in Warsaw and Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to rule that it may block migrants from applying for asylum at ports of entry along the southern border.

The administration’s lawyers argued that the right to asylum, which arose in response to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, does not extend to those who are stopped just short of a border post in California, Arizona or Texas.

They pointed to part of the immigration law that says a non-citizen who “arrives in the United States … may apply for asylum.”

“You can’t arrive in the United States while you’re still standing in Mexico. That should be the end of this case,” Vivek Suri, a Justice Department attorney, told the court.

Immigration rights advocates called this claim “perverse” and illogical. They said such a rule would encourage migrants to cross the border illegally rather than present themselves legally at a border post.

The justices sounded divided and a bit uncertain over how to proceed. But the conservative majority is nonetheless likely to uphold the administration’s broad power over immigration enforcement.

Several of the justices noted, however, the Trump administration is not currently enforcing a “remain in Mexico” policy.

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned why the court would make a major decision on immigration and asylum with no immediate, practical impact.

The case posed a fundamental clash between the government’s need to manage surges at the border and the moral and historic right to offer asylum to those fleeing persecution.

In 1939, more than 900 Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi Germany aboard the MS St. Louis were turned away by Cuba and the United States. They were forced to return to Europe and more than 250 of them died in the Holocaust.

The worldwide moral reckoning spurred many nations, including the United States, to adopt new laws which offer protection to those fleeing persecution.

In the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress said that non-citizens either “physically present in the United States” or “at a land border or port of entry” may apply for asylum.

To be eligible for asylum, a non-citizen had to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Only a small percentage of applicants win their asylum claims, and only after years of litigation.

But faced with overwhelming surge of migrants, the Obama administration in 2016 adopted a “metering” policy that required people to wait on the Mexican side of the border.

The Trump and Biden administrations maintained such policies for a time.

Immigrant rights advocates sued, contending the metering policy was illegal. They won before a federal judge in San Diego who ruled the migrants had a right to claim asylum.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in 2024.

“To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” Judge Michelle Friedland wrote for the appeals court. “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’”

The Trump administration appealed.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the “ordinary meaning of ‘arrives in’ refers to entering a specific place, not just coming close to it. An alien who is stopped in Mexico does not arrive in the United States.”

On Tuesday, the Justice Department attorney said the court should reverse the 9th Circuit and uphold the government’s broad power to block migrants approaching the border.

“I can’t predict the next border surge,” Suri said.

“For more than 45 years, Congress has guaranteed people arriving at our borders the right to seek asylum, consistent with our international treaty obligations,” said Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who argued the case. “Yet this administration believes that Congress gave it discretion to completely ignore those requirements, and turn back those who are seeking refuge from persecution at its whim.”

“The people turned away at our border are fleeing rape, torture, kidnapping, and death threats. You cannot tell families running for their lives to go back and wait in danger because their suffering is inconvenient,” said Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, border rights project directo at Al Otro Lado which was the plaintiff in the case. “We brought this case because the United States made a legal and moral commitment to protect people fleeing persecution.”

Iran’s national football team returned to their war-torn nation after several of the players sought asylum in Australia.

Iranian authorities on Thursday gave the national women’s football team a hero’s welcome after their return from Australia, where some had made and then withdrawn asylum claims, amid accusations Iran had pressured their families.

Six players and one backroom staff member who travelled to Australia for the Women’s Asian Cup sought asylum earlier this month after they prompted criticism from hardliners in Iran for failing to sing the national anthem before their first match.

Five of them later changed their minds and returned home along with the rest of the team, including captain Zahra Ghanbari, with their fate prompting international concern amid the US-Israel war on Iran.

Activists have accused Iranian authorities of pressuring the women’s families, including summoning their parents for interrogation, while Tehran has alleged that Australia sought to force the athletes to defect.

Several thousand people, many holding Iranian flags, turned out for the welcome ceremony on Thursday evening in Valiasr Square in central Tehran, where other pro-government rallies have taken place in recent weeks, state TV images showed.

“My Choice. My Homeland,” read a slogan on a giant billboard on the square that showed the players in their national kit and mandatory hijabs saluting the Iranian flag.

Flanked by team members, Iranian football federation President Mehdi Taj said on stage, “What is certain is that these athletes are loyal to the homeland, flag, leader and revolution.”

Iranian government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani, one of the most high-profile women in Iranian politics, told the team members: “All Iranians were waiting for you; welcome to Iran.”

‘Threatening their families’

As onlookers cheered the players, giant AI-generated images of the women were projected on a screen showing them pledging loyalty to the Iranian flag against a background of Iranian national landmarks.

Two squad members have remained in Australia, but the remainder of the team, including the five other women who initially applied for asylum, arrived in Iran on Wednesday after a long journey home via Malaysia, Oman and Turkiye.

Activists have accused Iranian authorities of pressuring these five women into changing their minds through intelligence agents putting pressure on their families at home.

“The regime in Iran started threatening their families and basically took their families hostage. Because of that, they were forced to withdraw their asylum and go back to Iran,” Shiva Amini, a former Iranian national football player, who now lives in exile and campaigns on women’s rights, wrote on social media.

But Farideh Shojaei, an Iranian football official who travelled to Australia, said the players had been offered “houses, cars, money, promises of contracts with professional clubs, as well as humanitarian visas”.

“Fortunately, the members of our team valued their national identity above all else and turned these offers down,” she told Iranian media.

Before their opening game, the Iranian team fell silent as the national anthem played, although they later sang it in subsequent matches. An Iranian state TV presenter branded the players “wartime traitors”.

A central feature of the welcome ceremony in Tehran was singing the national anthem of the Islamic Republic, with players and officials joining in.

The captain of the Iranian women’s football team has withdrawn her bid for asylum in Australia, Iran’s state media says, making her the fifth member of the delegation to change her mind after her team’s participation in the Asian Cup.

Zahra Ghanbari will fly from Malaysia and travel to Iran within the next few hours, the IRNA news agency said on Sunday.

Three players and one backroom staff member had already withdrawn their bids for asylum and travelled to Malaysia from Australia, where the team participated in the AFC Women’s Asian Cup.

Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said his country had offered asylum to all players and support staff members prior to their departure over fears they might be punished upon their return home after the team refused to sing Iran’s national anthem at the tournament.

Iranian state broadcaster IRIB reported on Saturday that the three had “given up on their asylum application in Australia and are currently heading to Malaysia”, posting a picture of the women allegedly boarding a plane.

The news was confirmed by Burke a few hours later.

“Overnight, three members of the Iranian women’s football team made the decision to join the rest of the team on their journey back to Iran,” Burke said.

“After telling Australian officials they had made this decision, the players were given repeated chances to talk about their options.”

Five players took up the offer and signed immigration papers last week, with one more player and a member of staff joining them a day later. It leaves two Iranian players in Australia, where they have been promised asylum and an opportunity to settle.

Iran played their three group games of the Asian Cup at the Gold Coast Stadium in Queensland on March 2, 5 and 8, after the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran on February 28.

The initial attacks killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other leaders.

Overall, an estimated 1,444 Iranians have been killed since the war began, including more than 170 people, mostly schoolgirls, who were inside a primary school in the city of Minab.

After refusing to sing the Iranian national anthem at their first match, players on the Iranian women’s football team were branded “traitors” by an IRIB presenter.

When Iran played their second game of the tournament against Australia three days later, not only did the players sing the national anthem, but they also saluted it, prompting fears that they may have been forced to change their stance after receiving backlash in Iranian media.

While neither the players nor the team management explained why they refrained from singing before the first match, fans and rights activists speculated that it may have been an act of defiance against the Iranian government.

On the day of the team’s departure from Australia, Burke announced his government had offered all players and staff members the chance to stay back in the country.

On Tuesday, Burke told reporters that five Iranian players had decided to seek asylum in Australia and would be assisted by the government.

“They are welcome to stay in Australia, they are safe here, and they should feel at home here,” he said.

A day later, Burke confirmed that an additional player and a member of the team’s support staff had received humanitarian visas in the hours before their departure.

However, one player, who previously chose to stay behind, changed her mind and decided to return to Iran.

The player, who was later identified as Mohadese Zolfigol, changed her decision on the advice of her teammates, Burke told the Parliament of Australia.

“She had been advised by her teammates and encouraged to contact the Iranian embassy,” he said.

The players who managed to escape with the help of Iranian rights activists were taken away by Australian police officials to a safe house, where they met immigration officials and signed the paperwork.

“Our understanding is that every single member of the squad was interviewed independently by the Australian Federal Police,” Beau Busch, the Asia/Oceania president of players’ welfare body FIFPRO told Al Jazeera last week.

“[The players] were made aware of their rights and the support available to them. They certainly weren’t rushed through that process.”

Five players who defected from the Iranian women’s soccer team after the team’s final match in the Asian Women’s Cup in Australia were granted asylum Tuesday.

Police assisted the women in leaving their hotel and placed them in a safe house. There, they met with Australian home affairs minister Tony Burke and their humanitarian visas were processed.

At least seven players left the hotel, according to Raha Pourbakhsh, a journalist for Iran International TV. Families of at least three of the five players granted asylum had been threatened, Pourbakhsh told CNN. At least two other players who left the hotel haven’t been located.

According to an X post by Reza Pahlavi, son of the deposed Shah of Iran, the players who “successfully sought refuge in Australia” are Fatemeh Pasandideh, Zahra Ghanbari, Zahra Sarbali, Atefeh Ramazanzadeh, and Mona Hamoudi.

Pahlavi warned in a separate post that the women would face “dire consequences” if they return to Iran.

“I don’t want to begin to imagine how difficult that decision is for each of the individual women, but certainly last night it was joy, it was relief,” Burke said.

Burke said the asylum offer was extended to all 26 players and the coaching staff, but the team left Australia for Iran on Tuesday, Ten Network News reported. It was unclear whether anyone besides the seven players who had left the team hotel had defected.

The team remained silent during the Iranian national anthem before their first Asian Cup match a week ago, which was interpreted as a protest against the regime. They saluted and quietly mouthed words to the anthem before a match against Australia after pushback from the Iranian government and accusations of treason.

Australia assisted the women, who apparently fear persecution at home. Following the United States-Israeli strikes on Iran and retaliation in the Middle East, Iranian state television labeled the soccer team “wartime traitors” and alluded to repercussions upon their return to the country.

Protesters converged near the bus transporting the team after its final match Sunday night, shouting “save our girls” and carrying the Iranian Lion flag used before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Today, the flag is a symbol of resistance against the current regime.

Iran is now under the rule of Mojtaba Khamenei, a new hardline supreme leader. Khamenei is the son of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the 86-year-old leader who was killed on the first day of U.S. and Israeli attacks.

President Trump, in a statement Monday on Truth Social, said the United States would grant the Iranian players asylum if Australia did not. Trump posted a second time, saying he had spoken to Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and that five players had “already been taken care of” and that “the rest are on their way.”

However, Iranian first Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref objected to the involvement of Trump and Australia, saying: “Iran welcomes its children with open arms and the government guarantees their security. No one has the right to interfere in the family affairs of the Iranian nation and play the role of a nanny who is kinder than a mother.”

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong told ABC that her country sides with the men and women of Iran.

“For Australians to see [Iranian players] in Australia and the Matildas swapping jerseys with them was, I think, a very evocative moment,” Wong said. “We know this regime has brutally oppressed many Iranian women and we stand in solidarity with the men and women of Iran, particularly Iranian women and girls.”

WASHINGTON — A year into the Trump administration’s ratcheted-up mass deportation effort, approval rates for asylum seekers have plummeted as immigrants are too afraid to show up for court hearings.

Fewer than 3% of asylum cases decided in January were approved — a record low, according to Mobile Pathways, a San Francisco nonprofit that analyzes federal immigration data. That’s compared with an 18% approval rate in January 2025.

Nationally, 20% of immigrants seeking asylum missed their hearings in January, compared with half that rate a year earlier. Asylum seekers with pending applications are in the country legally, but under federal law, failing to appear for a hearing can result in a deportation order.

In Los Angeles County immigration courts — among the largest in the country — the trend is substantially starker: no-shows made up 56% of the asylum hearings in January, compared with 14% a year earlier.

“That’s not fluctuation,” said Bartlomiej Skorupa, chief operating officer of Mobile Pathways. “That’s collapse.”

A Justice Department spokesperson said the Trump administration is restoring integrity to immigration courts.

As of December, nearly 3.4 million cases were pending in immigration courts, with more than 2.3 million of them asylum cases, according to TRAC, a data research organization.

The rise in the number of people avoiding asylum hearings helps explain another trend in the immigration court system. Over the last year, the number of asylum cases marked “abandoned” has doubled.

Immigration attorneys say cases can be classified as abandoned for various reasons: An applicant missed a deadline, filled out a form incorrectly, or just decided to leave the U.S.

But the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the agency that administers immigration courts, can label a case abandoned if the applicant fails to show up for a hearing. Nationwide, the number of cases considered abandoned doubled over the last year to make up about 41% of those decided in January.

It takes an average of four years for immigrants to receive an asylum hearing, though a final decision can take longer with appeals, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

During the Biden administration, most asylum claims were not issued decisions by an immigration judge; instead, many were administratively closed, or paused and taken off judges’ dockets. While the case is inactive, the person can remain in the U.S., work legally and pursue other avenues of relief.

But such a policy is vulnerable to being reversed by a subsequent administration, Migration Policy Institute experts wrote in a November report.

Lindsay Toczylowski, co-founder of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center in Los Angeles, said the increase in no-shows is in part because the Trump administration began reopening asylum cases that had been administratively closed for many years.

Many of those people are no longer in contact with their attorney, if they had one, and would be difficult to notify of a new hearing.

A decade ago, a significant portion of asylum seekers came from El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras, many of whom settled in Southern California.

Since President Trump returned to the White House, Los Angeles was one of the earliest cities where federal agents began arresting immigrants at courthouses. Immigrants have become afraid to engage with any law enforcement authorities, Toczylowski said.

The government’s goal, she said, “is not due process or pursuing justice for people in immigration courts — it’s deportation orders. If people don’t show up in court, that’s a way for them to meet their metrics.”

Immigration courts are housed within the Department of Justice and judges have long complained that they lack full independence from executive branch overreach. The department disputes that, saying judges are independent adjudicators who decide cases individually.

More than 100 immigration judges have been fired since Trump took office and about the same number have resigned or retired, according to the union representing immigration judges. That’s down from 735 judges in last fiscal year.

Last summer, the Pentagon authorized up to 600 military lawyers to work for the Department of Justice after removing the requirement for temporary immigration judges to have immigration law experience.

Jeremiah Johnson, a former immigration judge who was fired last year from the San Francisco Immigration Court, said the 3% asylum grant rate in January is shockingly low.

Johnson, who was vice president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, said decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals throughout the last several months have limited asylum law. Immigration judges must abide by the precedent set in those cases.

One such case, for example, reverses prior interpretations to now limit gender-based asylum, finding that persecution claims based solely on gender, or gender combined with nationality, don’t generally don’t meet the definition of a “particular social group” — one of the five categories under U.S. asylum law.

Another factor contributing to lowered asylum approvals, he said, is that the federal government has started seeking to dismiss asylum cases by forcing migrants to start over in a “safe third country.”

These requests stem from the increasing number of so-called asylum cooperative agreements, which allow federal officials to send certain migrants to other countries — including less stable places such as Honduras, Uganda and Ecuador — instead of continuing to seek asylum in the U.S.

“It has really been a restriction in the availability for asylum and other related protection,” he said.

Kathleen Bush-Joseph, one of the authors of the Migration Policy Institute report, pointed to a post last month on X by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who said that asylum “is limited to individuals fleeing extremely narrow categories of state persecution.”

“None of the groups illegally crossing the border fit that criteria,” Miller wrote. “No one in Mexico or Ecuador or Honduras etc live in nations where there is any state persecution of any protected class.”

But Bush-Joseph cautioned that it’s not yet clear whether the Trump administration’s asylum changes are legal.

“Even though there are executive actions in place that are restricting access to asylum, those are being challenged in court and I don’t think that we know how all of this will turn out,” she said. “A lot of people are being deported in the meantime and they may not get the chance to come back.”