On May 7, 2026, a federal judge in California reaffirmed the vacatur of the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule — the policy that barred asylum for hundreds of thousands of migrants who traveled through a third country. If the rule shaped your case, a meaningful legal window may now be open.
A NOTE ON SOURCES
This article is based on the May 7, 2026 order issued by Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, Case No. 18-cv-06810-JST, and on established immigration law and procedure. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different.
The Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule (CLP Rule) was issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice in May 2023. It created a legal presumption that any noncitizen who crossed the southern border between May 11, 2023 and May 11, 2025, after traveling through a third country, was ineligible for asylum — unless they had used a CBP One appointment, been denied protection in a transit country, or could show exceptionally compelling circumstances like an imminent threat to their life.
The consequences were severe. Many people were told to apply for withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection instead of asylum — forms of relief that carry a higher burden of proof, offer no path to a green card, and cannot include family members. For families whose CBP One appointments were canceled after January 20, 2025, there was simply no way to satisfy the Rule. The door was closed.
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California reaffirmed the vacatur of the CLP Rule. The bottom line: the Rule is unlawful and currently unenforceable.
The court's reasoning rests on two straightforward points. First, Congress established in federal law that noncitizens may apply for asylum regardless of how they entered the United States. The CLP Rule conditioned that right on pathways — the CBP One app, CHNV parole programs, transit-country protection — that many applicants could never realistically access. That condition directly contradicts the statute.
Second, when the Trump Administration terminated the CBP One app and the CHNV parole programs on January 20, 2025, it eliminated the very pathways the Rule required people to use. The court found that this made the Rule's unlawfulness worse, not better: you cannot penalize someone for failing to use a door that no longer exists.
⚠️ IMPORTANT: THIS RULING MAY NOT REMAIN IN ITS CURRENT FORM
The government may appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit or seek a stay that would temporarily reinstate the Rule while the appeal is decided. A new rule with similar restrictions could also be issued. Individuals whose cases were affected by the transit ban should seek legal advice promptly rather than waiting for further litigation developments. The window that exists today may narrow or close.
Every case is fact-specific and requires individual legal assessment. But if any of the following descriptions sounds familiar, this ruling may have opened a path that was previously closed to you.
THIS RULING MAY CREATE NEW OPTIONS IF
→ You were denied asylum and the decision cited the transit rule or the presumption of ineligibility because of the route you took to the United States.
→ You were told you could only apply for withholding of removal or CAT protection because asylum was “not available” to you under the transit rule — even if no one ever formally denied you.
→ Your CBP One appointment was canceled after January 20, 2025, and you had no other way to satisfy the Rule’s requirements.
→ You were told by an attorney or official that the transit rule made your asylum case impossible and were discouraged from filing at all.
→ You have a pending asylum case where the CLP Rule has been raised as a barrier or as a basis for ineligibility.
→ You are in removal proceedings with a hearing coming up — raising a viable asylum claim now is far better than trying to reopen after a final order is issued.
The Rule’s vacatur does not automatically reopen your case. Immigration courts and DHS will not revisit your file on their own. You need to take action — and the procedural windows are strict.
If an immigration judge issued a final order in your case and the CLP Rule played a role, a motion to reopen asks the court to reconsider in light of changed law. Motions to reopen are generally subject to a 90-day deadline from the date of the final order. That window may already be running. The sooner you speak to an attorney, the more options you will have.
If your case is pending at the BIA, or a BIA decision was recently issued, the May 7 ruling may support a motion to remand or a supplemental filing. BIA appeals carry their own strict 30-day deadlines.
Yes. If you have a hearing scheduled and the CLP Rule has been raised in your case, this ruling is directly relevant and should be brought to the court’s attention now — before a final order is entered. Raising a viable asylum claim in an active case is almost always better than trying to reopen after the fact.
If you were steered toward withholding of removal or CAT protection because an attorney or immigration official told you the transit rule made asylum unavailable, you may now have the ability to pursue the asylum claim you were previously denied. An immigration attorney can review your record and assess whether a motion to reopen or a new application is the right path.
At the Law Offices of Sabrina Li, we have represented clients whose cases were directly shaped by the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule. We have counseled families who were told they had no viable asylum path because of the route they took to safety. We have handled the withholding and CAT cases the Rule forced onto people who deserved a full asylum hearing. And we have watched clients navigate a court system operating under a rule that — as a federal judge has now confirmed twice — was unlawful from the start.
WHAT WE CAN HELP WITH
→ Motions to reopen — immigration court
→ Appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
→ Federal court petitions for review
→ Representation at immigration court hearings in pending removal cases
→ Second opinions for individuals previously told they had no viable asylum claim
For families who believed the asylum system had permanently closed its doors to them, this ruling may represent something rare in immigration law: a genuine second chance. The decisions made in the coming weeks and months may matter enormously.
THE LEGAL WINDOW MAY NOT REMAIN OPEN INDEFINITELY
The government may appeal or seek to reinstate the policy. A new rule could be issued. The legal posture that exists today may not exist in the same form next month. If your case was affected by the asylum transit ban, waiting to review your options could limit the remedies still available to you. We encourage you to reach out now, while the window is open.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law changes rapidly; the information above reflects the state of the law as of May 2026. Every case is different and outcomes depend on individual facts and circumstances.
Sources: East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, Case No. 18-cv-06810-JST, Order Reconsidering Standing and Granting MSJ (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2026); EBSC v. Biden, 993 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2021); EBSC v. Garland, 994 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2020); FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024); 8 U.S.C. § 1158; Executive Order No. 14165, 90 Fed. Reg. 8,467 (Jan. 29, 2025); Presidential Proclamation 10888, 90 Fed. Reg. 8,333 (Jan. 29, 2025).
Phone: (213) 375-8096
Email: info@sabrinali.law
Hours: Mon-Fri, 9:00AM - 5:00PM PT (Except Public Holidays)
