In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law allows the government to stop asylum seekers from physically setting foot in the United States, effectively keeping them from applying for asylum. The decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado reshapes asylum eligibility at the border and will affect how you advise clients and time filings.
What changed
The 6-3 decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, favored the Trump administration’s interpretation of an asylum clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court ruled that immigrants who appear at ports of entry on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border have not “arrived” in the country and are therefore not eligible to apply for asylum and be inspected by an immigration officer.
“An alien standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country,” reads the majority opinion. “An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border.
The decision allows for the reinstatement of the “metering” policy that was first instituted by the Obama administration in 2016. Metering permitted Customs and Border Patrol officials to turn back asylum seekers without valid travel documents. “Metering does not permanently bar any alien from arriving and applying for asylum. It merely delays entry,” the Court states.
Why it matters
The ruling eliminates asylum eligibility for applicants at the threshold. Under INA § 1158(a)(1), applicants must “arrive in” the U.S. to qualify for asylum consideration and mandatory inspection. Immigrants who appear at ports of entry on the Mexican side cannot be inspected by an immigration officer — no asylum interview, no credible-fear screening, no inspection-based relief. CBP can now lawfully refuse entry and order them to wait in Mexico.
For your practice:
- You cannot advise clients that standing at a port of entry on the Mexican side triggers asylum or inspection rights.
- The decision is binding nationally and forecloses the 9th Circuit’s prior holding (October 2024) that port-of-entry applicants had “arrived in” the U.S.
- Metering may be reapplied, creating capacity-based barriers even for applicants with strong claims. CBP’s formal guidance has no process for tracking turned-away individuals or ensuring their later inspection. In practice, asylum-seekers could be turned away repeatedly with no record of their prior attempts.
- Applicants must now physically cross U.S. territory to establish eligibility—advice you may need to give with great care given safety and enforcement risks.
Way forward
- Review pending cases. If you have clients with asylum applications pending or at-risk due to metering or port-of-entry denial, consult the full opinion and evaluate whether any claims predated June 25, 2026 and may be grandfathered under equitable doctrines.
- Advise clients of the changed landscape. Do not rely on port-of-entry appearance as establishing asylum eligibility. Applicants must cross into U.S. territory to trigger INA § 1158 protections.
- Document crossing details. If a client has crossed, ensure filings show actual physical presence in the U.S. at the time of asylum application to establish “arrival” and defeat CBP turn-away claims.
- Monitor implementation. DHS and CBP will issue or refresh metering guidance. Watch the Federal Register and agency newsroom for policy memoranda that codify scope, duration, and ports of entry subject to metering.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Folaform is a software company, not a law firm. Consult a licensed immigration attorney about your specific circumstances and eligibility for relief. Verify all claims against the primary source linked above. Immigration policy can change without notice; the Supreme Court’s decision may be subject to legislative override or further judicial review in specific applications.