Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, decided June 25, 2026, 6-3.
You cannot apply for asylum in the United States while standing on Mexican soil. This was the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court on June 25 in a 6-3 decision in the case of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado. For individuals waiting in line at a port of entry, this ruling effectively blocked their path to seeking asylum. This decision has significant practical implications, aligning with the ongoing trend of strengthening border policies.
Issue: The word "arrive"
“Any alien physically present in the United States or arriving in the United States, regardless of the alien's immigration status, may apply for asylum — Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 208(a)(1)”
The issue in this case was singular: whether a person standing in Mexico awaiting admission to the United States qualified as an "arriving alien" under the provision. The plaintiffs argued that appearing at the port of entry and expressing a desire to enter was sufficient to constitute arrival. Their logic was that the provision's language, "whether or not at a designated port of arrival," required a broad interpretation of arrival. They contended that just as the provision treats individuals interdicted in international or United States waters at the border as having arrived, there was no reason not to consider someone standing before the port of entry as having arrived. The government countered that arrival only occurs upon actually crossing the border.
Justice Alito, writing for the majority, accepted the government's interpretation. He ruled that foreigners in Mexico who fail to enter the U.S. have not "arrived" in the U.S. As a result, he concluded that such individuals are not eligible to claim asylum and that immigration authorities have no obligation to inspect them. The lack of an inspection obligation is particularly significant. Up until now, the general procedure has been that if a person reaches the border and expresses a fear of persecution if returned to their home country, immigration authorities must conduct a credible fear screening (an early-stage review to determine if there are grounds to believe the individual might face persecution or torture if forcibly deported). This ruling essentially confirms that this process does not apply to individuals remaining outside the border. The interpretation of a single word in the statute has determined the legal status of tens of thousands of people waiting at the border.
Background of the Case: Metering and a Decade-Long Lawsuit
“Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has been limiting the number of asylum seekers processed at ports of entry each day. This practice is called metering.”
This lawsuit began about 10 years ago when, as asylum seekers from Haiti crowded at a port of entry near San Diego, border authorities operated a waiting list and limited the number of people processed per day. The civil society organization Al Otro Lado has been pursuing the lawsuit since around 2017, arguing that this practice violates immigration law and constitutional due process. The fact that those waiting were exposed to crime or threats to their safety while staying in Mexican border cities was also a basis for the lawsuit. While the lawsuit was underway, the lower courts partially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the government adjusted its metering operations several times. However, the Supreme Court's ruling has confirmed that the metering practice itself does not violate immigration law. This means that the practice of making people wait in line at the port of entry and not recognizing their eligibility for formal asylum applications before their turn is legal. Although the practice of being placed on a waiting list and waiting for one's turn has changed its form over the years and across various administrations, the conclusion of this ruling, that those waiting before entry are not given the right to apply for asylum, is likely to be applied consistently regardless of what form of waiting system is introduced in the future.
Coincidentally, on the same day, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the government in a separate case challenging the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS — a system that postpones deportation and allows residency and employment until the disaster or conflict situation in one's home country stabilizes) for individuals from Haiti and Syria. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion in both rulings, and Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson joined in the dissenting opinions. Within a single day, rulings came out consecutively that expanded executive discretion on two pillars of immigration: border entry and maintaining residency status. The fact that border issues and residency status issues are not separate became apparent on this day.
Majority opinion and dissenting opinion
“Today, this Court upholds an Executive Branch policy that closes its doors to all those fleeing persecution, even though Congress has prescribed a detailed system of review and protection. I respectfully dissent. — Justice Sotomayor, dissenting.”
Justice Sotomayor, along with Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented, arguing that the majority opinion interpreted Congress's immigration and asylum framework too narrowly. The criticism is that by focusing solely on the literal wording of a provision, the majority missed the overall protective intent of immigration law. The dissent pointed out that an interpretation deeming individuals not to have "arrived" until their turn in line at a port of entry would effectively allow the executive branch to block asylum applications simply by controlling the number of people waiting. There is a concern that setting the daily processing limit to zero could, in effect, lead to the permanent closure of the border. Conversely, the majority maintained its stance that interpreting the provision as written is the court's role. The logic is that extending asylum application rights to foreigners outside the border is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary.
Immigration advocates expressed concern that the ruling eliminates the last legal avenue for those seeking protection at the border. Conversely, those prioritizing border control viewed it as a decision that would reduce indiscriminate entry attempts. From the perspective of an immigration attorney, this ruling now makes the determination of whether one can seek asylum at the border purely a matter of geographical location – specifically, which side of the border line one stood on. Even if individuals arrived at the border on the same day for the same reasons, the outcome could differ depending on whether they crossed a river or a bridge. The degree of fear of persecution or the urgency of their situation no longer dictates eligibility to apply from outside the country. Both sides agree that this single ruling will not end the debate surrounding border policy.
Outside the border and inside the border are different — asylum applications from those already in residence
“Asylum applications must generally be filed within one year of arrival in the United States—Immigration and Nationality Act § 208(a)(2)(B)”
This ruling applies only to individuals outside the border, meaning those who have not yet set foot on U.S. soil. The right to seek asylum for individuals already physically present in the United States remains unchanged by this ruling. This is because the statutory text itself stipulates the requirements of being "physically present" and "arrives in" the country separately and side-by-side. Therefore, individuals who have already entered and are currently staying in the U.S. on tourist or student visas, or those who have illegally entered and are within the U.S., will continue to maintain their eligibility to apply for asylum regardless of this ruling. However, the deadline requiring asylum seekers within the U.S. to apply within one year of their arrival will still apply in principle. Exceptions may be granted for those who exceed the deadline due to changed country conditions or personal circumstances. Examples of changed circumstances include the emergence of a new regime in one's home country that begins to persecute specific groups, or the outbreak of civil war. Reasons that necessitate a delayed application, such as the applicant's own illness or the inadequate representation by their agent, are treated as extraordinary circumstances. In both exception cases, the applicant must provide evidence to prove their claim and must also explain that they applied within a reasonable period after missing the deadline.
Asylum applications are divided into affirmative procedures, which are voluntary applications filed with the Immigration Service, and defensive procedures, which are raised as a defense during deportation proceedings. Neither procedure is directly affected by this ruling. However, the ruling clarifies that if someone attempts to enter the country at the border and fails, and is returned to their home country or a third country, they generally cannot apply for asylum unless they re-enter through another legal pathway. Failing to understand this boundary, which separates waiting outside the border from being present within the border, can lead to individuals giving up on avenues where they could have received help, or conversely, wasting time on paths that are already closed.
Closing remarks
The boundaries drawn by this ruling are clear. If your family is waiting outside the border, the first thing to confirm is that the application route through the port of entry is blocked. Similarly, being on a waiting list is no longer sufficient to claim eligibility for asylum. Those already in the United States should calculate the one-year deadline from their date of arrival and check in advance how much time they have left and if any exceptions apply. If you anticipate exceeding the deadline due to changes in your home country's political situation or personal circumstances, you should start gathering supporting documentation now. It is also advisable to determine in advance whether your application falls under an affirmative or defensive process. If you attempted to enter from outside the border and failed, but are currently in the U.S. through another route, your eligibility will be reassessed based on your current physical presence, not this ruling. Border policies are likely to continue to change even after this ruling. If you have a case currently in progress, carefully compare the ruling date with your or your family's specific circumstances.
Disclaimer: This column is for general information purposes only and is not legal advice for your specific case. You should always consult with an attorney who specializes in immigration law for your individual case.
Law Offices of Jin D. Cho
NEW YORK OFFICE (Flushing) 35-24 154th Street, Flushing, NY 11354
(t) 718-353-2699 (f) 718-353-8132
NEW JERSEY OFFICE 560 Sylvan Avenue, 3Fl., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
(t) 201-449-0009