Sponsors (3)
Need help making sense of this bill?
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Adds an exception to expedited removal so that the expedited removal process does not apply to an alien who is a national or citizen of, or would be removed to, a country designated under the International Religious Freedom Act as a "country of particular concern" or on the special watch list. In short, nationals of those designated countries would not be immediately removed under the existing expedited removal rules and would instead be processed under the slower, regular immigration procedures available to other non‑citizens. The change uses the Secretary of State’s religious freedom country designations to define the covered group, shifting how certain arrivals from those countries are handled at the border and ports of entry.
Amend Section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by striking each place a certain text appears and inserting the phrase "subparagraph (F) or (H)" in its place.
Add a new subparagraph (H) titled "Exception for country of concern" that says: Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an alien who is a native or citizen of a country of concern or would be removed to such a country.
Define the term "country of concern" to mean a country designated by the Secretary of State as a "country of particular concern" or a "special watch list country" under section 402(b)(1)(A) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.
Who is affected and how:
Individuals: Noncitizens from countries designated by the Secretary of State under the International Religious Freedom Act (countries of particular concern and the special watch list) will no longer be subject to immediate expedited removal; instead they will receive the fuller intake and screening processes applicable outside expedited removal (e.g., credible fear screening, withholding/asylum consideration, or placement into removal proceedings). This may increase their chance to present asylum or other protection claims before removal.
DHS and Border/Immigration officers: Border Patrol, CBP, and ICE staff will need to identify whether an alien is a national of a designated country or would be removed to one, and then apply the exception. That adds operational steps (checking designations, documenting nationality/destination, routing cases away from expedited removal), which could increase processing time per case.
Immigration adjudicators and courts: More cases may enter the regular asylum and immigration court pipelines, increasing workloads for asylum officers, immigration judges, and EOIR staff.
Detention and logistics: With fewer immediate removals for affected nationals, detention patterns may shift—potentially longer initial processing or increased releases on alternatives to detention while hearings proceed—raising resource and capacity considerations.
Diplomacy and foreign policy interface: The rule links immigration enforcement outcomes to State Department human-rights/religious-freedom designations, meaning changes to the IRF lists may quickly change enforcement practice, creating coordination needs between State and DHS.
Legal consequences: The categorical exception may produce more administrative and judicial review over removal decisions and could prompt litigation testing the scope or application of the exception (for example, proof of nationality or removal destination).
Overall, the provision narrows the use of expedited removal for a defined group, likely increasing downstream processing and administrative burdens within immigration and asylum systems while offering additional procedural protections to nationals of the listed countries.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced May 20, 2025 by Yassamin Ansari · Last progress May 20, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House