skip

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.”

A record number of school holiday fines were handed out across England last year, and there’s one region that saw the most children take unauthorised time off as parents are hit with penalties

The English town with the highest number of pupils heading on holidays during term time has been revealed, as holiday penalties hit an all-time high.

Across England last year, a record-breaking 459,288 school holiday fines were handed out, the Department for Education (DfE) has confirmed. The number of penalties shot up by four per cent in 2024-2025 and accounted for 93 per cent of all fines issued for unauthorised school absence.

These mark the first statistics published since school holiday fines increased in 2024, jumping from £60 to £80 per parent, per child, per holiday. While parents risk a substantial penalty, they can save thousands of pounds by booking their family getaway during term time, swerving peak-season prices.

READ MORE: ‘They said my daughter had growing pains but she’ll lose ability to walk’READ MORE: School rules that mean parents can be fined up to £2,500

Yet, if the school fine is not paid within 21 days, it can be raised to £160, and if parents receive a second penalty for the same child within three years, it will instantly cost £160, according to Gov.uk rules. And there’s one region willing to take this risk most of all.

The area with the highest recorded number of fine notices per pupil in 2024/25 was Barnsley, making it the holiday fines capital of England. The local authority issued 5,275 fines to parents over the year for unauthorised family holidays, meaning 1,672 for every 10,000 pupils.

Following news of a spike in penalty notices across England, parents have shared their views. Among them is Jodie Salt, from Cheshire, who has insisted that her three daughters learn ‘far more through travel and real life’ than in a classroom.

Jodie exclusively told the Mirror: “I’ve always taken my kids out of school, and I’ve been fined for it, and I’m fine with that (and will continue to do it in the future). School curricula are so outdated. They’re still focused on memorising information and passing exams, instead of developing real-world skills, confidence and behaviour. My kids learn far more through travel and real life than they do sitting at a desk in a classroom!

“They develop their social interaction, learn resilience when things don’t go according to plan, they learn about money and currency, they broaden their horizons about what’s possible for their own futures and careers, they clearly develop more language capability and learn about different cultures first hand too – all priceless!”

Another mum, who wishes to stay anonymous, took her children out of school for a wedding anniversary and admitted: “The fine was a struggle to pay, but it cost less than going on summer holidays.”

She shared: “We took five of our children to Lanzarote for two weeks. The second week was half-term, so I was fined for the first week for four children. The holiday was very educational for the children. We visited a volcanic crater and ate dinner at the top of a volcano. The children learned about the eruptions on the island. They rode camels, visited an animal park. It was our 10th wedding anniversary.

“Ten years previously, we took our eldest three on the same holiday for our honeymoon, and we did the same activities. I would definitely do it again, especially for a special occasion. We saved so much money. Originally, I was going to book for a week in half-term, but when we extended it to two weeks, flying out the week before half-term, the price didn’t increase much.”

For teachers, it can be disruptive when children are taken out of school during term time. However, one teacher, who is also a mum to three children, said: “I’m completely against blanket school fines, and I think wholeheartedly it’s the wrong approach.”

The parent, who also wishes to stay anonymous, continued: “As a teacher and a mother, I think holidays are important. If your child has generally good attendance, I think families should be given the right to take their children out. Home-schooled children have this ability (when they can afford it), but state children do not? Holidays are great learning experiences and bonding time. I don’t mind when my students go on holiday; I love seeing them excited, and I ask them questions when they come back.

“I do not make those children worry about their ‘attendance’ either, and ruin their experience. The only time I am concerned about parents taking their children out is when those parents do not parent. They do not care about their child’s education, whether that is poor attendance and lateness, no homework/or they never show up to a parents’ evening. This reflects in their grades and general attitude towards school.”

She added, “What really needs to be targeted is the holiday resorts that jack their prices up.”

However, many parents disagree with taking children out during term-time, arguing that it is disruptive for a child’s education.

One shared on Facebook: “I’m firmly in ‘camp no’ to taking out during term time. However, I still disagree with the fines or further punishment due to the high amount of Sen parents who get punished!”

Another commented on X: “I don’t agree with taking kids out of school for a holiday – if holiday companies were regulated, there’d be no need.” One more agreed to the fees and wrote on X: “Yes, and enforce them properly. These parents who take their children out of school are likely the same ones who moan that the teachers aren’t doing their jobs properly because their kids are not getting the grades.”

Cllr Ashley Peace, Cabinet Support Member for Children’s Services in Barnsley, told the Mirror: “Improving attendance is a priority for us, and we will continue to work with schools and parents to share the importance of preventing term-time absences.

“We ask parents to consider the impact of taking children out of school for holidays. While we acknowledge that families want to keep holiday costs down, there is research which demonstrates that term-time holidays can create gaps in learning that are difficult to bridge.

“It can feel hard to catch up and for some children it can be challenging to settle back into school when attendance is inconsistent or disrupted. We continue to follow government guidance when issuing any school absence fines, and the money raised through these penalties is used to cover the costs of running the system.”

A Department for Education spokesperson also shared with the Mirror: “Every child deserves the best start in life, and that begins with being in school. Term-time holidays place the burden on teachers to support missed learning and affect the entire class.

“We are playing our part to support those children who face barriers to attending school, and this is making a difference – with 5 million more days in school last academic year and 140,000 fewer pupils persistently absent. Alongside this, fines continue to have a vital place in our system, so everyone is held accountable for ensuring children are in school.”

Do you believe in school holiday fines? Have your say here.

Do you have a travel story to share? Email webtravel@reachplc.com