Supreme Court Rules Migrants Outside the United States Are Not Yet Entitled to Apply for Asylum
The United States Supreme Court has issued an important decision limiting the ability of migrants outside the United States to demand access to the U.S. asylum process at the southern border.
On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, No. 25-5. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that a person who remains physically outside the United States has not yet "arrived in the United States" for purposes of the federal asylum statute simply because that person presents himself or herself to American immigration officials at the border.
The decision gives the federal government considerably greater authority to control access to ports of entry during periods of increased migration.
What Was the Case About?
The case arose from a government practice commonly known as "metering."
Under metering, U.S. Customs and Border Protection limited the number of individuals who could enter certain ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border each day for inspection and asylum processing.
Asylum seekers and immigration advocates challenged the practice, arguing that once a person reached a U.S. port of entry and requested asylum, immigration officials were required to process that individual even if the person was technically still standing on the Mexican side of the border.
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the asylum seekers.
The Supreme Court did not.
What Did the Supreme Court Decide?
The Court focused primarily upon the language Congress used in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
INA § 208(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), generally permits a noncitizen who is "physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States" to apply for asylum, subject to the limitations contained elsewhere in the statute.
The Supreme Court held that a person does not "arrive in the United States" until that individual actually crosses the international border.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act neither gives a person standing in Mexico the statutory right to apply for asylum nor requires a U.S. immigration officer to inspect that individual merely because the person has reached the border.
The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that encountering an American immigration officer at the border was sufficient to trigger the statutory asylum-processing requirements.
What Does the Decision Mean?
The ruling potentially gives the federal government substantial flexibility in managing the number of individuals permitted to approach and enter ports of entry for asylum processing.
The government specifically told the Supreme Court that metering remained an important tool and that it could resume the practice if changing border conditions warranted doing so. The Court's decision removes the lower-court judgment that had prevented the government from using metering within the Ninth Circuit.
The practical consequence is significant.
An individual who reaches the international border but remains outside U.S. territory cannot necessarily compel Customs and Border Protection to immediately admit and process that person for asylum.
The government may therefore have greater ability to regulate the timing and manner in which individuals outside the United States are permitted to enter the country for processing.
The Decision Does Not Eliminate Asylum
The scope of the decision is important.
The Supreme Court did not hold that asylum no longer exists, nor did the Court hold that individuals already physically present inside the United States are categorically prohibited from applying for asylum.
The statute continues to distinguish persons who are physically present in the United States from those attempting to enter it.
Mullin instead concerns an important threshold question: when has a person actually "arrived in the United States" for purposes of invoking the asylum statute?
The Supreme Court's answer is now clear. Physical presence outside the United States—even immediately adjacent to the border—is not enough. The person generally must cross the border before he or she has "arrived in the United States" within the meaning of the provisions addressed by the Court.
A Significant Change in Border Asylum Law
The decision represents another major development in the rapidly changing law governing asylum and border processing.
Individuals considering asylum should understand that the procedures available to someone already inside the United States can be very different from those available to someone attempting to seek admission from outside the country.
Other restrictions, filing deadlines, statutory bars, expedited-removal procedures, credible-fear requirements, and eligibility rules may also apply depending upon how and when an individual enters or attempts to enter the United States.
Speak With an Immigration Attorney
Asylum law involves complicated questions of statutory eligibility, procedure, entry, admissibility, credibility, filing deadlines, and potential removal consequences.
Mathur Law Offices, P.C. represents individuals in asylum and removal matters and can evaluate the immigration consequences of a particular person's circumstances before important decisions are made.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law and agency procedures can change rapidly, and individual results depend upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case.