Expedited removal is an immigration and nationality law process of the United States where analien is denied admission to and/orremoved from the country, without a hearing before animmigration judge, as provided pursuant to section 235 of theImmigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. § 1225).[1] The expedited removal process can be applied to an alien who has been present for less than two years, who has not been admitted or paroled, who is inadmissible, and who is neitherCuban nor has indicated an intention to apply forasylum or afear of persecution. The expedited removal process was enacted as part of theIllegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, passed by the104th Congress and signed into law byPresident Bill Clinton.[2]
Over time, the scope of application has been expanded and contracted at the discretion of theSecretary of Homeland Security, and as of 2025, is being applied at the maximum extent provided by law. Prior to 2025, the scope of expedited removal was limited to aliens who were encountered within 100-miles of a border of the United States and had been present for less than two weeks.[3]
Expedited removal was first introduced in United States immigration law as part of the IIRIRA, passed by the104th U.S. Congress and signed into law by then U.S. PresidentBill Clinton.[2]
The IIRIRA gave the U.S.Immigration and Naturalization Service (the name for the umbrella organization responsible for immigration enforcement at the time) the authority to remove from the United States, without the need for a hearing before an immigration judge, people who:[2][4]
Starting April 1997, when the IIRIRA came into force, the INS implemented expedited removal only against noncitizens seeking admission at designated ports of entry (such as airports and sea ports).
In November 2002, the INS expanded the application of expedited removal to people satisfying these three conditions:[2][5]
Given that expedited removal now included people who were already present in the United States, and therefore might affect people eligible for asylum, the INS also introduced acredible fear screening process for those who indicated that they might be eligible for asylum.[6]
In 2004, theUnited States Department of Homeland Security published an immediately effective notice in theFederal Register expanding the application of expedited removal to aliens who are encountered within 100 miles of any land or sea border and who entered the U.S. without inspection less than 14 days before the time they are encountered.[2]U.S. Customs and Border Protection could therefore identify possible immigration violators anywhere in this 100-mile border zone and process them for expedited removal if they had been in the country for less than 14 days.
The notice clarified that, as a matter ofprosecutorial discretion, the DHS would apply the expansions only to:
It also indicated that officers could exercise discretion not to commence expedited removal proceedings based on individual equities.
Due to resource constraints, the expansion of expedited removal to the entire border zone did not happen immediately. The implementation was done in three phases:[2]
Expedited removal was used about 188,000 times by theObama Administration in FY2014.[7]
In July 2019, the Department of Homeland Security under theTrump Administration expanded the scope of expedited removal to include aliens anywhere in the United States for less than two years.[8] The District of Columbia chapter of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union andAmerican Immigration Council challenged this notice in the federal caseMake the Road New York v. McAleenan, preventing its use until a temporary injunction was lifted by theAppeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in June 2020.[8][9] The case was dismissed when[10] theBiden Administration reversed the 2019 Trump expansion in March 2023.[11] Another ACLU lawsuit challenged theIllegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 on the grounds that its limitation ofhabeas corpusjudicial review violates theSuspension Clause ofArticle One of the U.S. Constitution. TheUnited States Supreme Court upheld the law in its 2020 decisionDepartment of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam.
In FY2019, the Trump Administration performed about 163,000 expedited removals, but due to lawsuits over the expansion, only 17 were from the interior of the country.[8] From early 2020 to mid-2023, theCOVID-19 pandemic saw hundreds of thousands of removals under public health emergencyTitle 42 expulsion powers. Expedited removal was used about 193,000 times in FY2024 to deport migrants from the border region for less than two weeks.[8]
At the beginning of the secondTrump Administration, in response toExecutive Order 14159, the Department of Homeland Security reinstated the 2019 expansion.[12] The ACLU quickly filed another lawsuit,Make the Road New York v. Benjamine Huffman, arguing that the DHS notice violated theDue Process Clause in theFifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, theImmigration and Nationality Act of 1965, and theAdministrative Procedure Act.[13]In March 2025, the caseCHIRLA v. Noem was brought to challenge the use of expedited removal for people previously onhumanitarian parole who were about to become eligible for removal due to blanket revocation of parole[14] underExecutive Order 14165.
A number ofde facto andde jure exceptions apply to expedited removal.[1]
Those who request to apply for asylum, or express a fear of persecution or torture when they make contact with immigration enforcement, are referred for acredible fear interview with aUnited States Citizenship and Immigration Services officer. If they are able to demonstrate to the officer that they have a credible fear of persecution or torture, they may no longer be subject to expedited removal, but go through a regular immigration hearing before a judge.[1] If they fail to convince the USCIS officer that they have a credible fear of persecution or torture, they may be subject to expedited removal.
Prior to President Obama's re-formalization of diplomatic relations with Cuba, the United States followed a "wet feet, dry feet policy". Cubans already present in the United States were eligible to stay, and weren't subject to expedited removal proceedings. However, those who arrived at a designated port of entry could be subject to expedited removal.[1]
As part of the re-normalization of diplomatic relations, on January 12, 2017, the Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland SecurityJeh Johnson announced the following change:[15]
"Beginning today, DHS has rescinded certain policies unique to Cuban nationals. Specifically, DHS has eliminated a special parole policy for arriving Cuban nationals commonly known as the 'wet-foot/dry-foot' policy, as well as a policy for Cuban medical professionals known as the Cuban Medical Professional Parole Program. It is now Department policy to consider any requests for such parole in the same manner as parole requests filed by nationals of other countries."
"DHS is also eliminating an exemption that previously prevented the use of expedited removal proceedings for Cuban nationals apprehended at ports of entry or near the border. The existing Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program is not affected by this announcement and remains in effect."
Anybody who states under oath to a border agent that they are a citizen, lawful permanent resident, or asylee cannot be subject to expedited removal and gets an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge. Lying about one's status in these circumstances may make one inadmissible and could even lead to a lifetime bar to U.S. admission.[1]
The officer at a designated port of entry may discretionarily give people being turned back the option of "voluntary return" as an alternative to expedited removal. Avoluntary return also goes on the person's immigration record, but has fewer serious legal consequences for attempted future entry than an order of removal.[1]
After an immigration enforcement official (working forU.S. Customs and Border Protection) comes in contact with the person believed to be eligible for expedited removal, the official asks the person if they want to apply for asylum or fear persecution or torture if returned to their home country.[16]
An expedited removal order cannot be appealed. However, it is possible to submit a challenge to the order to theU.S. Customs and Border Protection to reconsider an expedited removal order.[1] The challenge should be filed within 30 days of the decision. Based on the information and evidence provided, the CBP may exercise its discretion and overturn its prior expedited removal order.[17] If an expedited removal order was issued at a designated port of entry such as an airport, the affected party may also file a complaint with the DHS'sTraveler Redress Inquiry Program.[17]
As far as the effects on future admissibility to the United States, expedited removal is treated similarly to ordinary removal.[1] For first-time offenders who have not committed anaggravated felony and did not lie under oath, the typical ban length is five years. However, the ban could be a five-year, ten-year, twenty-year, or permanent ban based on the circumstances.[18]
A "Just Facts" summary by theImmigration Policy Center identified a few other summary removal practices similar to expedited removal:[19]
Other procedures related to expedited removal include:
A number of immigrant rights advocates have expressed concern about the lack of due process involved with expedited removal, both at designated ports of entry and for people in the border zone.[20]
TheNational Immigration Law Center expressed concern about the expansion of expedited removal to the entire border zone considering that the concerns expressed by theUnited States Commission on International Religious Freedom regarding protections for asylum-seekers had not been adequately addressed.[2] Similarly, theAmerican Civil Liberties Union has argued that expedited removal can lead to many people who would qualify for asylum getting deported.[21] TheImmigration Policy Center noted that expedited removal proceedings and other rapid deportation decisions "often fail to take into account many critical factors, including whether the individual is eligible to apply for lawful status in the United States, whether he or she has long-standing ties here, or whether he or she has U.S.-citizen family members."[19]
TheAmerican Civil Liberties Union has noted that the 100-mile "border zone" within which expedited removal can be carried out houses roughly 2/3 of the United States population, and has expressed concern about the implications of these broad enforcement powers for civil rights and constitutional protections.[22]
TheCenter for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates reduced immigration to the United States (both legal and illegal), has noted that expedited removal, as authorized by the IIRIRA, gave the executive branch sufficient power to deport a large fraction of illegal immigrants, but that the executive branch had been exceedingly cautious with its application.[4]