What America can learn from Europe’s asylum overhaul

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

We are experiencing a global refugee crisis, and have been for a long time. At the end of 2025, there were 117.8 million people forcibly displaced from their homes “as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations or events seriously disturbing public order.” Nine million of them were seeking asylum.

In 2015, more than a million asylum-seekers fled to European Union countries. This had a number of adverse consequences, such as overloading the EU’s asylum systems. It caused a significant rise in xenophobic, racist and antisemitic sentiments, which then contributed to a decade of popular support for far-right parties. Border facilities became overcrowded. Member states had difficulty processing asylum applications in a timely manner.

The U.S. is facing a similar challenge — its asylum system has been overwhelmed by asylum seekers, too. As of the end of April, its immigration court had a backlog of more than 3 million pending cases, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had a backlog of more than 1.5 million affirmative asylum applications at the end of 2025. The average wait for a hearing before an immigration judge has reached 4.3 years, with some courts approaching six years.

In 2024, the EU introduced a Migration and Asylum Pact, a complex set of legislative files for managing migration and the asylum applications that are consistent with European values. A modified version of the pact became fully applicable on June 12 of this year.

The pact contains dozens of provisions, including mandatory screening at borders; an expanded Eurodac database for biometric data; accelerated border processing for priority groups of undocumented migrants; crisis-management provisions; and measures for the rapid removal of unsuccessful asylum applicants, with provisions to prevent them from absconding before they can be deported.

Detention can only be used when it is necessary; the pact views it as a last resort when less coercive measures will not work, and it is subject to judicial scrutiny. And asylum-seekers are entitled to free legal counseling.

Can the U.S. use any of the provisions in the pact? Yes, at least four.

First, the pact establishes an accelerated procedure for asylum applicants from countries with success rates for persecution claims of 20 percent or less. Such applicants are held at the border for up to 16 weeks while their applications are processed. The U.S. could adopt a similar approach for reducing its immigration court backlog.

Approval rates for asylum applications in the U.S. vary enormously by applicant native country. In fiscal 2023, for instance, grant rates ranged from single digits to 77 percent. The immigration court could accelerate its processing of asylum adjudications by establishing single country dockets for countries with very low grant rates. Most of the asylum applications would be meritless, and the judges would quickly become experts on the persecution claims that do have merit.

Second, the pact has expanded its use of biometric data, such as fingerprints and facial images, other types of identity data, and immigration documents. The Office of Biometric Identity Management at the Department of Homeland Security has already established comprehensive biometric identification systems. But it could expand its operations and make the data available to officers in the field with mobile biometric readers. This would facilitate the quick identification of aliens who should be taken into custody. It could be especially useful for identifying illegal crossers who cross multiple times, visa overstayers, and aliens who have ignored final removal orders.

Third, the pact makes special procedures available to respond to a crisis or abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances. The U.S. Congress has authorized emergency powers and funding mechanisms for natural disasters. It should follow the EU’s lead and develop a comprehensive emergency framework for major, unexpected increases in asylum applications.

Fourth, the pact provides a procedure for removing asylum seekers promptly when their applications are denied. This was needed because only around 20 percent of the migrants who received an expulsion order have been expelled.

The U.S. also is having difficulty removing aliens with final deportation orders. As of November 2024, the U.S. had more than 1.4 million aliens subject to final deportation orders who had not been deported. But the U.S. already has statutory provisions that would facilitate their removal. With few exceptions, these provisions require such orders to be executed within 90 days and the detention of deportable aliens during the removal period.

The takeaway is not that we should copy Europe’s new asylum system. Many of the provisions deal with the difficulty of establishing asylum systems for 27 different member states. But it includes a few ideas that could help America improve the management of its own asylum system and reduce its immigration court backlog.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.