Annual Asylum Fee in the United States: What It Is, How It Works, and Its Current Legal Status
January 22, 2026
A Historic Change in the Asylum System
Until 2025, there was no mandatory annual fee in the United States to keep an asylum case open. Filing an asylum application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or before an immigration judge within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) carried no cost for the applicant.
This changed with the passage of the federal fiscal law known as H.R. 1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which for the first time introduced two fees for asylum applicants:
- An initial filing fee of $100.
- An annual fee of $100 for each year the case remains pending.
How Does the Annual Fee Work?
The so-called Annual Asylum Fee (AAF) requires every applicant with an open asylum case to pay $100 for each calendar year in which the application has not yet been decided. This charge applies regardless of the outcome of the case and cannot be waived or reduced.
According to organizations closely monitoring the issue, the fee is assessed in two main contexts:
- Before USCIS: If the application has been pending for at least one year, USCIS must send a formal notice to the applicant with payment instructions.
- Within the immigration court system (EOIR): Cases that have been pending for more than one year also trigger the obligation to pay $100 per year, although for some time there was no clear mechanism to make this payment through EOIR’s platform.
USCIS Enables Online Payment Amid Ongoing Confusion
Beginning in October 2025, USCIS enabled an official online payment portal allowing asylum applicants to pay both the initial filing fee and the annual fee. This step was part of the broader implementation of the new fees established under H.R. 1.
However, not all applicants have received clear notifications. According to reports, many asylum seekers are still waiting for information about when and how to pay the AAF, while some immigration judges have already begun requesting payment even when payment mechanisms were not yet available to everyone.
Risks for Applicants Due to Lack of Clarity
The rollout of the annual fee has been so confusing that at least one documented case shows an applicant being ordered deported for failing to pay the annual fee before any established method for payment existed. This situation was reported in a lawsuit filed by the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP).
As a result, panic has spread among asylum seekers, along with a surge of phone calls and emails overwhelming immigration law firms and USCIS itself. To date, however, significant misinformation still persists.
Temporary Suspension by Court Order
Due to the lack of clear mechanisms and the contradictory guidance issued by federal agencies, a federal court in Maryland issued an order temporarily pausing the enforcement of the annual fee.
This decision stems from the lawsuit ASAP v. USCIS, which argues that:
- The annual fee was applied retroactively without clear prior notice.
- There was no effective method to pay the fee before it was required.
- The agencies acted arbitrarily and inconsistently with one another.
The ruling granted a temporary stay that prevents USCIS and EOIR from requiring payment while the legal dispute continues and prohibits penalizing cases for nonpayment during that period.
Fee Adjustments for 2026
In addition to the ongoing litigation, USCIS announced that certain fees would be adjusted for inflation effective January 1, 2026. Under this adjustment, the annual fee for asylum applications would increase from $100 to $102, although collection of this fee remains suspended by court order.
What Does All This Mean for Applicants?
In summary:
- As of 2025, there is a $100 annual fee to keep an asylum case open, in addition to the initial filing fee.
- USCIS has enabled online payments and has been sending notices to affected applicants.
- There is widespread confusion and lack of clarity about how and when to pay, especially for cases in immigration court.
- A federal court has temporarily paused collection of the AAF while litigation is ongoing.
- Fees are set to be adjusted for inflation in 2026, although their enforcement depends on the outcome of the court case.
The introduction of an annual fee for asylum applicants in the United States represents a profound shift in immigration policy, with potentially significant effects on those awaiting decisions in their cases. Although the fee exists in law and USCIS has begun implementing payment mechanisms, practical enforcement is currently on hold due to a court order intended to protect applicants from unfair consequences. The situation continues to evolve, and it is important to stay alert to new legal and administrative developments.
Major Victory for Employers, Universities, and Highly Skilled Foreign Workers
Rising immigration enforcement, policy changes, and growing uncertainty are discouraging many lawful permanent residents from pursuing the protection and stability that U.S. citizenship is meant to provide.
New federal rule leaves thousands of work-authorized immigrants without commercial driver’s licenses
Various recent media outlets confirm that a new rule by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), under the U.S. Department of Transportation, prevents immigrants with work authorization—including asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients—from obtaining or maintaining commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs), affecting hundreds of thousands of drivers. Reports from outlets such as The Washington Post, The Guardian, and CalMatters indicate that the measure is already causing the loss of licenses and jobs, as well as potential impacts on the supply chain. Meanwhile, labor and legal organizations have filed lawsuits, such as Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA , arguing that the rule is illegal, discriminatory, and severely harms the livelihoods of thousands of families. The administration implemented a rule that prevents asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients from obtaining or renewing CDLs. Lawsuits say it will “destroy livelihoods” A transportation-focused publication confirms the language used by plaintiffs: Attorneys stated that the rule “threatens to destroy the livelihoods” of thousands of drivers. It explains that asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients are excluded. Real impact: loss of licenses and jobs A recent CalMatters report shows that this is already happening: Thousands of immigrant truck drivers have already lost their licenses in California. Many have been left unemployed and in legal uncertainty. It is estimated that up to 61,000 could lose their licenses in that state alone. Economic and industry effects Driving schools report a sharp decline in student enrollment due to the new rules. Companies and analysts warn that the measure reduces the workforce and may increase costs. Implementation of the rule (key detail) Legal and regulatory sources confirm: The rule went into effect on March 16, 2026. It only allows CDLs for certain visa types (H-2A, H-2B, E-2). Other work-authorized statuses no longer qualify. Recently, The Guardian published an article analyzing the impact of this measure on driving schools. Start CDL, a driving school founded by immigrants Asyl Kushnir and Gene Moik, is facing possible closure due to a sharp decline in student enrollment following new restrictions implemented during the administration of Donald Trump. Enrollment dropped from nearly 100 students per month to just 25–30, seriously affecting revenue despite high demand for drivers. According to its owners, the changes have created confusion and reduced access for immigrants with work permits—such as asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients—who previously saw trucking as a stable job opportunity. This serves as a small example of the different angles from which this new policy must be analyzed. In summary ✔️ The rule exists and is already in effect ✔️ It directly affects immigrants with work authorization ✔️ There are active lawsuits (such as the one you mentioned) ✔️ Media reports confirm real losses of jobs and licenses
Share On: