Expedited removal is a procedure for removing a person from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge: the decision is made by an immigration officer, and only days may pass between the arrest and execution of the order. The mechanism was created by Congress in 1996 (INA § 235(b)(1)) and for decades was applied mostly at the border to recent arrivals; since 2025 its reach has been expanded to the entire country.
Status as of July 22, 2026. DHS announced the nationwide expansion of expedited removal back in January 2025 (90 FR 8139), but a court held its application back. On June 23, 2026, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a 2–1 decision in Make the Road New York v. Mullin, vacated the stay entered by the district court in August 2025, finding the expansion did not violate due process — which allowed DHS to apply the expanded procedure nationwide. Judge Wilkins dissented; the plaintiffs are weighing further challenges — rehearing en banc or a petition to the Supreme Court.
Who expedited removal covers
After the January 2025 expansion, the procedure applies to people arrested anywhere in the United States who were not admitted or paroled and cannot show at least two years of continuous physical presence. A key feature is the burden of proof: the two years of presence must be proven by the person themselves, and the appeals court expressly confirmed that officers are not required to tell a detained person that this exception exists. Outside the procedure's reach, by statute, are those admitted to the country (including permanent residents) and those currently holding parole, as well as unaccompanied minors; a separate dispute concerns whether people whose parole has expired or been terminated count as "paroled" — DHS treats them as covered by the procedure, and that position is being challenged in court. The court also acknowledged that mistakenly applying the procedure to people who have lived in the country more than two years is unlawful — but treated such cases as violations by individual officers, not a defect in the policy itself.
How the procedure works
An officer who finds a person inadmissible (usually for lacking valid documents or for misrepresentation) issues a removal order without sending the case to immigration court — unlike ordinary removal proceedings, with a notice to appear, hearings, and the right to a defense, which can take years. The person is told what measure is being applied and on what grounds and is given an opportunity to respond; where the person claims two years of presence, internal ICE instructions direct officers to allow a "brief but reasonable opportunity" to present supporting evidence. If the person expresses a fear of persecution or torture, or an intent to seek asylum, they are referred for a credible fear interview with a USCIS officer — on a positive finding, the person is referred for further consideration of the protection claim rather than being removed through expedited removal at that stage; the route (a merits review of the application by a USCIS officer or proceedings in immigration court) is determined by the rules in effect at the time.
Consequences of the order
An expedited removal order generally carries a five-year ban on entering the United States (INA § 212(a)(9)(A)(i)); the specific consequences depend on the person's immigration history, and where misrepresentation is found, longer grounds of inadmissibility may also apply. Options for judicial review of the order itself are extremely narrow: under INA § 242(e)(2), habeas review is limited to three questions — whether the person is an alien, whether an order under § 235(b)(1) was issued against them, and whether they can prove permanent resident, refugee, or asylee status. How the ordinary process before a judge works is described in the pillar on immigration court and removal; the mechanics of detention and locating detainees, in the section on ICE detention; the asylum protection process, in the pillar on asylum in the United States.
What is the two-year rule?
It is the boundary of the procedure's reach: the law allows expedited removal to be applied only to those who cannot show two years of continuous physical presence in the United States. The person themselves proves presence; there is no exhaustive fixed list of documents — in practice, evidence includes leases, utility bills, pay stubs, tax returns, and dated school and medical records.
Is the officer required to explain the defenses against expedited removal?
No. The appeals court in June 2026 said it directly: due process requires notifying the person of the measure being applied and its grounds and giving an opportunity to respond, but it does not require explaining how the person might defend themselves — including the two-year rule and other exceptions.
What happens when a person claims fear of persecution?
The case goes to a USCIS officer for a credible fear interview. If the officer finds a significant possibility that the person could establish eligibility for asylum or other protection, the case is not completed through expedited removal at that stage and moves on under the rules in effect — to a merits review or to immigration court; a negative finding can be reviewed by an immigration judge in a limited procedure.
Can an expedited removal order be appealed?
The options are extremely limited: ordinary judicial review is excluded, and habeas review under INA § 242(e)(2) is reduced to three questions (whether the person is an alien, whether an order under § 235(b)(1) was issued, whether they hold resident, refugee, or asylee status). That is why the constitutional battles are fought not over individual orders but over the policy itself — as in Make the Road New York, where the question of further review of the June 2026 decision remains open.