If you have been following immigration developments or speaking with attorneys, you may have heard that ACA (Asylum Cooperative Agreement)–based motions are currently on pause. On the surface, this sounds like a positive development. For several months, ACA arguments were used to try to stop asylum cases at the very beginning, often before an applicant had any real opportunity to explain their situation in court.

However, the current reality is more complicated. While ACA-based motions are not being used in the same way, asylum cases are still being denied early. The mechanism has changed, but the result is often similar. Many applicants are now facing decisions that are made before they ever have a meaningful chance to testify or present their full story.

What changed?

Under the ACA framework, the government would argue that a person should not be allowed to seek asylum in the United States because they passed through another country and could have applied there. These arguments were tied to a specific regulatory structure and were relatively straightforward in how they were presented in court.

Today, those arguments have largely receded from day-to-day practice. This has created an impression that immigration courts may be returning to a more traditional process, where each applicant has a full hearing and an opportunity to explain their case in detail.

In practice, that has not happened. Instead of relying on ACA, the government and immigration courts have shifted toward a different approach—one that focuses much more heavily on the written application itself. Rather than stopping a case based on where someone traveled, courts are increasingly evaluating whether the case, as written, is legally sufficient from the outset.

What is happening now?

Immigration courts are now relying more frequently on decisions such as Matter of C-A-R-R- and Matter of H-A-A-V-. These decisions have changed how early a case can be evaluated and, in some situations, ended.

The effect of these cases is that immigration judges may look at the asylum application and decide, at a very early stage, whether the case meets the legal requirements for protection. If the judge concludes that the case does not meet those requirements—even assuming that everything written is true—the judge may deny the case without moving forward to a full hearing.

This represents a meaningful shift in how asylum cases are handled. The focus has moved away from developing the story over time and toward evaluating whether the written submission alone is enough to justify relief.

Why this matters for you

For someone applying for asylum, this change is significant. In the past, many applicants expected that they would have the opportunity to explain their experiences in court, answer questions, and provide additional details during a hearing. That expectation is no longer guaranteed.

There are now situations where a case can be decided based entirely on the written application, without the applicant ever testifying. This means that the opportunity to clarify misunderstandings, provide context, or respond to concerns may never arise.

For many applicants, this can feel like the process has become more rigid and less forgiving. It also increases the importance of the early stages of the case, where decisions about how the application is prepared can have long-term consequences.

The key issue: your written application

The asylum application, Form I-589, has always been important. Today, it is often the most critical part of the case.

Courts are increasingly treating the application not just as an introduction, but as the core of the claim. If the application does not clearly explain what happened, why it happened, and how it connects to the legal requirements for asylum, the case may be vulnerable from the beginning.

This does not mean that every case will be denied early. However, it does mean that the written application must stand on its own. It must tell a complete and legally coherent story, without relying on the assumption that additional details can be added later during testimony.

For applicants, this represents a shift in expectations. The process is less about building the case over time and more about presenting a strong and complete case from the very start.

What is “pretermission”?

You may hear the term “pretermission” used in this context. While the word itself may sound technical, the concept is straightforward.

Pretermission means that the judge decides the case early, without moving forward to a full hearing. Under Matter of H-A-A-V-, a judge may determine that even if all the facts in the application are accepted as true, the case still does not qualify for asylum or related protection. When that happens, the judge can deny the case without hearing testimony.

This approach is similar to how courts in other areas of law sometimes dismiss cases at an early stage if the legal requirements are not met, even before all evidence is presented.

For asylum applicants, this can be difficult, because it removes the opportunity to explain the case in person and to respond to questions directly.

Is there still hope?

Despite these changes, it is important to understand that applicants still have rights. Immigration law requires a fair process, and decisions must be made in a way that respects those basic principles.

In many cases, especially within the Ninth Circuit, courts have emphasized the importance of allowing applicants a meaningful opportunity to present their claims. If a case is denied too quickly, without proper consideration of the facts or without allowing necessary testimony, that decision may be challenged.

If your case is within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, you are generally in a stronger position compared to some other regions. The Ninth Circuit has historically taken a more careful approach to due process in immigration cases and has been more willing to scrutinize decisions where applicants were denied a fair opportunity to be heard.

This does not guarantee a result, but it does mean that there is meaningful legal ground to challenge improper early denials when they occur.

What this means for your case

The current environment requires a different approach to preparing asylum cases. It is no longer enough to assume that gaps or unclear points can be addressed later in court.

Instead, the case must be developed thoroughly from the beginning. The written application should clearly explain the applicant’s experiences, the reasons for fear, and how those experiences fit within the legal framework of asylum.

This does not mean that the process is impossible or that cases cannot succeed. It does mean that preparation must be more deliberate, and that the early stages of the case carry greater weight than before.

Final thoughts

The pause in ACA-based motions has changed the surface of immigration court practice, but it has not reduced the overall pressure on asylum cases. Instead, the system has shifted toward earlier evaluation and, in some situations, earlier denial.

Through decisions such as Matter of C-A-R-R- and Matter of H-A-A-V-, immigration courts are placing greater emphasis on the written record and the legal sufficiency of the application at the very beginning of the case.

At the same time, the legal system continues to recognize the importance of fairness and due process. While the challenges are real, there are still ways to respond to them effectively—especially for those within jurisdictions where courts remain attentive to procedural protections.

Understanding how these changes affect your case is the first step toward navigating the process successfully.