The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a new directive instructing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to take additional steps to crack down on fraudulent asylum claims. The memo, issued on May 26, 2026, signals a shift in enforcement strategy: ICE will now pursue civil penalties against immigration attorneys themselves under existing federal document-fraud statutes. If you represent asylum clients or advise on asylum strategy, you need to understand the new enforcement posture and what it means for your file.
What changed
DHS instructed ICE to develop anti-fraud policies that will further enforce 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(d), a law that establishes penalties for violations of document fraud. DHS General Counsel James Percival instructed ICE attorneys within the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor to develop “anti-fraud policies” designed for “robust enforcement” of existing federal anti-fraud law.
As a result of this directive, ICE attorneys have greater authority to enforce this law, including enforcement actions against immigration attorneys who file false asylum claims in an immigration court. The memo does not create new penalties; rather, it directs ICE to use existing administrative enforcement tools—specifically, civil penalties under 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(d)—more aggressively.
The statute cited in Percival’s memo allows the government to pursue civil penalties against people accused of immigration-related document fraud, including those who knowingly prepare, file or help file applications that are false or contain false statements. Any case would typically begin with a “notice of intent to fine,” a formal charging document that informs the recipient that the government believes they violated the law and may be fined.
Why it matters
This memo shifts the burden of anti-fraud enforcement away from criminal prosecution and immigration judges, and onto ICE civil attorneys. For you, the practical effect is elevated scrutiny and enforcement risk at the administrative level.
If you represent asylum clients, ICE now has marching orders to pursue you civilly—not just your client—if your asylum application or any affidavit filed in immigration court contains false statements or omissions. ICE lawyers have not been using the administrative statute as aggressively as DHS would like, but now they have “greater authority to enforce.” This changes the calculus when you evaluate a client’s credibility, the strength of a claim, and the risk of filing.
The memo’s language is broad. The DHS memo accuses immigration attorneys of “assert[ing] that virtually every illegal alien is going to be persecuted or tortured in his or her home country because of a protected characteristic like race or political opinion.” This rhetoric blurs the line between legitimate case development and “fraud”—a distinction that matters greatly when you file. Observers have raised concerns about how weak cases, frivolous claims, and intentionally fraudulent claims will be distinguished in practice.
Way forward
-
Review your asylum files now. Identify any pending or recently filed I-589 or related affidavits where the factual record could be challenged or where inconsistencies exist. Consider whether supplementation, amendment, or candid withdrawal is appropriate before ICE focuses enforcement attention.
-
Update your conflict-of-interest and case-acceptance procedures. Before taking an asylum case, conduct a more rigorous credibility interview. Document the client’s story, identify inconsistencies, and get written confirmation from the client about material facts. Keep contemporaneous notes showing you vetted the case for fraud risk.
-
Tighten client communications. Counsel clients in writing that false statements or omissions in asylum filings expose them and you to civil penalties. Make clear that you will not file a claim you believe is false or misleading.
-
Monitor ICE notices of intent to fine. If you receive a civil charge under 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(d), consult immediately with counsel experienced in administrative defense. These cases do not carry criminal jeopardy, but they carry financial penalties and professional liability.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. If you are facing a civil charge or investigating an immigration-enforcement directive, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. Verify all information against the source memo and applicable law; policy and enforcement priorities can change without notice.