03/30/2026 Following restrictions introduced at the end of 2025, the administration is gradually moving away from the practice of delaying decisions in asylum cases at USCIS. Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-scaling-back-asylum-crackdown-national-guard-shooting/ The restrictions applied to affirmative asylum cases, which are reviewed by USCIS outside of immigration court. The process was not completely halted. Cases remained active, background checks were conducted, and additional evidence was collected. However, decisions were not issued in a number of cases. Immigration courts continued to process their cases as usual. Decisions to delay were made at the DHS and USCIS level following an incident involving the National Guard. Authorities relied on existing powers, including: • the authority to delay decisions • reopening and reconsideration procedures • additional security and credibility checks These mechanisms are provided by law. The issue arose because they began to be applied simultaneously to a large number of cases. What has changed now According to CBS: • USCIS is beginning to resume decisions on cases that had been paused • there is less review of already approved cases without specific grounds • cases are once again being reviewed individually At the same time, the rollback of restrictions is only partial. According to CBS News, the pause in asylum decisions remains in place for applicants from 39 countries subject to travel ban restrictions. Additionally, for nationals of these countries, other immigration applications are also on hold, including: • work permits • green cards • citizenship The article mentions countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba, and Laos. From the post-Soviet region, Turkmenistan appears on confirmed lists. No reliable data is available for other countries in the region. Judicial context According to Reuters, federal courts are also reviewing related issues, including detention practices and the expanded use of DHS authority. Courts emphasize the need for individualized review and соблюдение procedural safeguards. Conclusion Authorities have stepped back from the strictest part of the restrictions and are gradually returning to normal case processing. The law has not changed-the way it is applied has. ⸻ This information is for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.