Can Asylum Seekers Be Turned Away? US Turnback Policy Explained

Asylum seekers can be turned away at the U.S.–Mexico border under the current interpretation of immigration law when they have not physically entered U.S. territory. In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced that “arrival” under the Immigration and Nationality Act requires physical presence inside the United States, not proximity to a port of entry or waiting on the Mexican side of the border.

For legal help with asylum or immigration matters, speak with an experienced immigration attorney through the Super Lawyers directory.

Laws Governing Asylum Eligibility

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides the statutory foundation for asylum eligibility. It controls nearly every stage of the asylum application process.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), a person may seek asylum if they are “physically present in the United States or who arrive in the United States.” That threshold requirement has become an issue of legal debate. Before an asylum officer with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) evaluates whether an applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, the government must first determine whether the individual meets the definition of “arrival.”

People who arrive in the United States are subject to inspection. This is the formal entry point into the asylum application system. Depending on how the case is processed, it may be handled by USCIS or referred to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) for immigration court proceedings. In both tracks, inspection determines whether the asylum system is triggered at all.

The INA also leaves unresolved questions about geographic reach. Courts rely on the presumption against extraterritorial application. Laws are generally presumed to apply only within U.S. borders unless Congress clearly states otherwise. In asylum cases, this affects how courts interpret “arrival” and limits arguments that asylum protections should apply outside the United States based solely on proximity.

Have Immigration Questions?

U.S. immigration law is complex and changing. Find an immigration lawyer in the Super Lawyers directory to guide you through the system and protect your rights.

Find a lawyer today

What Is the “Turnback” or “Metering” Policy?

The turnback policy is a border management practice used by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that limits the number of individuals who may be processed at ports of entry each day.

When demand exceeds processing capacity, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may instruct asylum seekers to remain in Mexico and return later. This process determines when, and sometimes whether, an asylum application can be formally initiated within the United States.

The policy became more widely used during border surges beginning in the mid-2010s. Its application has not been uniform, with different administrations and field offices applying the turnback policy in varying ways. In some locations, it operated as a formal waiting list system, while in others it was applied more ad hoc depending on operational conditions at the port of entry.

The legal dispute surrounding turnback practices focuses on access to asylum and the scope of DHS authority. Critics contend that limiting entry in this way restricts meaningful access to the asylum process and delays the filing of an asylum application. The DHS maintains that the policy is a lawful exercise of border management authority designed to control processing capacity and reflect statutory limits tied to “arrival” at the border.

Legal Issue in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado

The dispute in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (2026) arose from asylum seekers who were waiting in Mexico at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border and attempting to access the U.S. asylum system. These asylees argued that they were unlawfully denied inspection under federal immigration law when turnback practices prevented them from reaching formal processing stages.

The district court ruled in favor of the asylees, finding that their attempt to present at ports of entry should trigger statutory protections. The Ninth Circuit expanded on that reasoning and adopted a “functional arrival” theory, suggesting that proximity to the border and attempted presentation could satisfy the statutory requirement of arrival.

Supreme Court’s Holding in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado

The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Ninth Circuit decision. It held that “arrival in the United States” under the INA requires physical entry into U.S. territory. The majority made clear that individuals waiting in Mexico, even directly at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, do not meet the statutory definition of having arrived.

The ruling also reaffirmed the presumption against extraterritorial application of federal statutes. Congress did not clearly extend asylum protections beyond U.S. territories. As a result, being near the border or seeking entry is not enough to satisfy the statutory requirement of arrival.

Dissenting Opinion in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado

The dissenting opinion rejected the majority’s formal territorial approach. Instead, it focused on access to the asylum system itself. It argued that the border functions as a single operational space.

Asylum seekers standing at ports of entry are already engaging with U.S. immigration procedures in a meaningful way. From this perspective, strict reliance on physical entry overlooks how turnback policies can effectively prevent asylum seekers from reaching the point where an asylum application can be filed.

Legal Significance of the Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision carries significant weight in defining how asylum law operates at the border. The Court reaffirmed that “arrival” under the INA is satisfied only through physical entry into the United States. That bright-line rule removes ambiguity in cases involving asylum seekers who remain just outside the border and reinforces a strictly territorial interpretation of asylum eligibility.

The ruling also affects how DHS manages ports of entry. By confirming that arrival depends on physical crossing, the Court effectively validates the government’s ability to regulate entry volumes and manage processing limitations at the border.

At the same time, the decision closes the door on “functional entry” theories. Courts will no longer treat presence at the border or interaction with federal officials as sufficient to trigger asylum protections. The standard is now tied exclusively to physical entry into U.S. territory, narrowing how asylum eligibility can be established in border-adjacent cases.

What the Ruling Means for Asylum Seekers

Under the Court’s rule, asylum seekers must physically enter the United States before statutory protections are triggered. Being present at a port of entry on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border is not enough to begin the asylum application process under the INA. That shift places greater weight on entry itself, not intent or proximity.

As a result, the exact point of entry becomes the dividing line between eligibility and ineligibility. In practical terms, the ruling is likely to mean longer waits for many asylum seekers in Mexico, as access to ports of entry becomes more limited. It also increases pressure on existing processing systems at the border.

Speak With an Immigration Lawyer

Asylum seekers are considered to have arrived only when they physically enter U.S. territory. For individuals seeking protection, that distinction can decide whether a claim is ever heard at all.

Because asylum law turns on timing, location, and procedural access, small legal details carry significant consequences. Working with an immigration attorney is often the difference between a claim that moves forward and one that never gets past the threshold question.

To find legal help, use the Super Lawyers directory to connect with an experienced immigration attorney in your area.