The Department of Homeland Security has ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys to ramp up enforcement against immigration lawyers accused of filing fraudulent asylum claims, putting a fresh spotlight on how far the government can go in policing the people who argue cases in immigration court.
What the memo says
A memo circulated in late May directs attorneys in ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor to draw up new anti‑fraud policies that officials say will let the government move faster against what it calls abuse of the asylum system, according to CBS News. The notice does not create any new criminal statutes; instead it signals that DHS wants broader use of existing civil enforcement tools and administrative processes.
The memo, dated May 26, tells ICE lawyers to design anti‑fraud policies focused on robust enforcement of federal document‑fraud laws and explicitly says that should include going after immigration attorneys who file false asylum claims in immigration court, per CBS News. It points lawyers to 8 U.S.C. §1324c and instructs them to consider civil penalties, cease‑and‑desist orders and other administrative remedies when they believe filings or the counsel behind them are fraudulent.
DHS General Counsel James Percival wrote in the memo that "for many years, millions of illegal aliens have committed fraud on our immigration system" and argued that asylum protections are intended for "unique and narrow" circumstances rather than routine claims, according to CBS News. The language gives ICE lawyers a clear green light to treat questionable cases not just as weak applications, but as potential fraud targets.
Lawyers push back
The American Immigration Lawyers Association has rejected broad claims of widespread misconduct among immigration attorneys and last year labeled the administration’s push against immigration lawyers "dangerous," warning that aggressive administrative policing could chill representation and undermine due process, according to a statement from AILA. Bar groups and immigrant‑rights organizations have similarly warned that going hard after counsel risks scaring lawyers away from complex asylum cases that already struggle to find representation.
Former U.S. immigration judge Mark H. Metcalf offered a different view, telling KTRH‑WOAI that some attorneys have used delay tactics in the past to keep clients in the country while cases dragged on, and that he saw examples of fraudulent filings from the bench, comments reported by News Radio 1200 WOAI. That local perspective highlights how the new memo fits into a larger administration effort to speed removals and trim back swelling immigration court dockets.
How enforcement could work
Under existing rules, civil document‑fraud cases typically start with a "notice of intent to fine," followed by possible adjudication in an administrative law forum governed by regulations implementing the document‑fraud statute. That framework, along with prior OCAHO decisions, lays out how penalties and hearings unfold. See the Department of Justice rule and guidance on penalties and administrative hearings for document fraud: Justice Department.
Policy watchers note that the memo does not add new criminal offenses but could increase how often civil tools are deployed, including fines, cease‑and‑desist orders, referrals to disciplinary authorities and, in the less common situations where investigators believe they have criminal conduct, potential prosecution. The Immigration Policy Tracking Project outlines the menu of remedies DHS flagged in connection with the directive.
Legal implications
The DHS directive traces back to a March 22, 2025 presidential memorandum that instructed the attorney general and DHS to hold lawyers and law firms accountable for what it called "abuses" of the legal system, a move that civil‑rights groups and bar associations say raises separation‑of‑powers and access‑to‑justice concerns. The underlying policy context is laid out in the White House memorandum for the March directive: White House.
Bar organizations say the real test will be where ICE draws the line between clear, intentional misconduct and legitimate, even hard‑charging advocacy that still fits within the law. AILA and other defenders of counsel have pledged to track how the new push is implemented and to challenge any policies they see as overreach, concerns that AILA underscored in its public statement.
What comes next will hinge on how ICE actually writes its anti‑fraud policies and which cases it chooses to bring under them. For migrants, private attorneys and law school clinics that represent asylum seekers, the memo adds a new layer of risk for practitioners whose cases the government later characterizes as fraudulent, and it virtually guarantees that the fight over how asylum is policed will continue to spill into courts, administrative tribunals and the halls of Congress.
