Ports of Entry and Asylum Explained: How They Work and What Protections Apply

The recent case of Adrian Conejo Arias and his five-year-old son Liam has put a spotlight on how asylum protections are supposed to work in the United States. Adrian and Liam, Ecuadorian nationals who entered the U.S. legally through a port of entry and have an active asylum case, were detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minnesota on January 20, 2026, as they returned home from school. Although their attorney and community leaders emphasize that the family had No Order of Deportation and were participating in the U.S. asylum process, they were transferred to a detention facility in Texas, raising concerns about the treatment of legally present asylum seekers and their families. A federal judge has since ordered their release, but the case has fueled public debate about how legal protections for asylum seekers are applied — especially for families — and why understanding those protections is crucial.

Q: What is a Port of Entry in the United States?

A: A port of entry (POE) is a place where people and goods may lawfully enter the U.S. It includes international airports, land crossings, and some seaports where U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers inspect travelers and cargo. POEs are staffed to check passports, visas, and goods to make sure they meet U.S. laws.

Q: How do U.S. Ports of Entry work?

A: When a person arrives at a POE—by plane, car, boat, or on foot—CBP officers inspect their identity, travel documents, and purpose of travel. Officers then decide whether the person can enter. If approved, they are lawfully admitted. If not, they may be denied entry or referred for further review. CBP also inspects cargo and luggage to prevent illegal goods from entering.

There are 328 official ports of entry in the United States operating at air, land, and sea entry points.

Q: Can someone request asylum at a U.S. Port of Entry?

A: Yes — under U.S. and international law, people can request asylum when they are physically present in the United States or at a port of entry, such as an airport or official land crossing. There is no separate visa you can get in advance just to seek asylum; you must be in the country or arriving at the border first.

Q: What happens when someone says they want to seek asylum at a Port of Entry?

A: When a person expresses that they want asylum to a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer at a Port of Entry, U.S. immigration authorities often begin a process to determine whether they have a “credible fear” of persecution or torture in their home country. If credible fear is found, the person may be allowed to start a full asylum process.

A credible fear determination is a preliminary screening where an asylum officer decides if the asylum seeker has a significant possibility of meeting the legal definition of a refugee.

Q: What protections do people with pending asylum cases have?

A: People with pending asylum applications are generally not supposed to be deported while their asylum claim is being processed — that is, they can’t legally be removed simply because they lack another immigration status. They must follow court dates and check-ins with officials during this time.

One result is that, in practice:

• Immigration authorities are not supposed to arrest or deport asylum seekers who are law-abiding and have documentation of their pending case (like a receipt notice or work permit category showing asylum pending status). While enforcement priorities can vary, asylum seekers with pending applications typically aren’t targeted for deportation just because their asylum case is in process.

Additionally, due process protections in U.S. law (under the Constitution) mean that people facing removal have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge where they can present their claim.

Q: How has immigration enforcement under the current administration been criticized for disregarding legal protections for asylum seekers?

A:  In recent enforcement actions, federal immigration authorities have taken steps that critics say undermine established legal protections for asylum seekers and other immigrants — even those with active legal cases or lawful status. These concerns come from several patterns and developments over the past year:

• Aggressive Detention and Enforcement Tactics - Reports show that immigration enforcement has expanded dramatically, with people who have no criminal record increasingly detained and held in harsher conditions. Critics argue detention is being used as a way to pressure individuals to abandon their claims rather than focusing on genuine security threats, eroding procedural protections like bond hearings and due process rights.

• Arrests of Lawfully Present Asylum Seekers - High-profile cases — such as the detention of Adrian Conejo Arias and his son Liam, who were taken into custody despite active asylum cases and lawful entry — sparked legal challenges and public outcry, with a federal judge temporarily blocking their deportation while litigation proceeds. The case has become symbolic of broader concerns about how enforcement actions treat legally present asylum seekers.

• Reduced Oversight and Due Process Concerns - Legal analysts and immigrant-rights groups have documented that recent policy shifts and enforcement practices reduce oversight of detention facilities and limit immigrants’ access to protections that are meant to ensure fair treatment, such as timely court hearings or access to counsel. Critics argue this erodes due process, a constitutional guarantee.

• Policy Changes Limiting Asylum Access - Beyond enforcement operations, legal rules have been implemented that make accessing asylum more difficult. For example, prior restrictions tied to how and where people arrive at the border have been upheld or expanded, despite longstanding legal and human rights frameworks that recognize the right to seek asylum regardless of the manner of entry.

In summary, while U.S. law provides protections for asylum seekers and due process for noncitizens, recent enforcement patterns have drawn criticism for placing broad enforcement goals ahead of those legal norms — particularly in cases involving people who are legally present or seeking protection. This has led to litigation, public debate, and calls from legal experts for greater adherence to procedural rights and humanitarian standards.