Supreme Court Limits Asylum Eligibility at U.S. Border to Individuals Physically Inside the Country

Key Point  

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that noncitizens must physically enter the U.S. before gaining the right to inspection or to apply for asylum. 

Asylum Eligibility at U.S. Border 

On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, holding that a noncitizen only “arrives in the United States” once they physically cross the border into U.S. territory.  

This interpretation defines when individuals become applicants for admission and triggers key immigration protections—including asylum eligibility—under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

“Arrival” Requires Physical Entry 

The Court found that the phrase “arrives in the U.S.” should be interpreted based on its ordinary meaning—a person arrives in a place only when they enter it.  

As a result: 

• Individuals standing outside the U.S., including at the border or a port of entry 
• Even those attempting to enter or encountering U.S. officials 

are not considered to have arrived under the INA.  

No Right to Inspection or Asylum Outside the U.S. 

Because the INA ties inspection and asylum eligibility to “arrival,” the Court held that individuals outside U.S. territory: 

• Are not yet applicants for admission 
• Are not entitled to inspection by immigration officers 
• Cannot apply for asylum at that stage  

The Court emphasized that these legal obligations begin only after a person enters the U.S. 

Implications for Border Processing 

The decision confirms that immigration authorities may: 

• Control access to U.S. territory at the border 
• Delay entry for individuals outside the country without triggering inspection or asylum obligations 

This includes the ability to manage processing capacity at ports of entry without treating individuals outside the border as having already “arrived.”  

Background 

The case arose from challenges to a prior U.S. policy known as “metering,” under which officials limited the number of individuals who could enter through ports of entry for processing each day.

Lower courts had ruled that individuals interacting with U.S. officials at the border should be treated as already arriving in the U.S. and therefore eligible for asylum processing. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation, reaffirming that physical entry is required to trigger statutory protections. 

Don’t Miss an Update

At Envoy Global, we combine smart, friendly legal teams with smart, friendly technology to facilitate immigration for companies and the global talent they depend on. Our holistic, proactive immigration services are built for accuracy and efficiency, always putting people first.

Reach out today to learn how we can support your company’s immigration needs.