USCIS Gender Policy Shift Raises Concerns for Asylum Applicants Based on Gender Identity
Angelica Rice • April 17, 2025
On March 31, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) implemented a policy update that limits gender marker selections on all immigration forms and systems to two biological sexes: male and female. This change eliminates the option for applicants to select a non-binary or “X” gender marker—an option that had previously been permitted on some forms.
While USCIS emphasizes that this update does not change who qualifies for immigration benefits, it may significantly impact how certain applications—particularly asylum claims based on gender identity-related persecution—are understood and evaluated.
What Has Changed?
Under the revised policy, applicants may now only choose “Male” or “Female” when completing USCIS forms. The ability to select a non-binary or third-gender option is no longer available.
Applicants may still request to change their gender marker with USCIS, but only within the male/female binary. Supporting documentation, such as medical or legal records, is not required to make the change. This means that transgender individuals can still align their gender marker with their identity—if it falls within the two binary categories—but non-binary individuals are no longer represented.
The change follows guidance issued by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which called for greater consistency in the collection of sex and gender data across federal agencies.
Impact on Asylum Applicants
This policy update is especially important for individuals applying for asylum based on persecution related to their gender identity. Under U.S. immigration law, asylum is available to people who have suffered persecution—or fear future persecution—based on their membership in a “particular social group.” This includes people targeted for being transgender, gender non-conforming, or otherwise not aligning with socially expected gender roles in their home country.
Although the legal standard for asylum remains unchanged, the removal of the non-binary gender marker could make it harder for some applicants to clearly present and document their identity. In asylum cases, credibility and clarity are crucial. The ability to accurately reflect one’s gender identity on official forms can play an important role in establishing the foundation of a persecution claim.
Now, applicants who identify as non-binary or outside the traditional male/female categories may be forced to select a gender that does not align with their lived experience. This could lead to confusion in their case file or require additional explanation during interviews or hearings. This policy could weaken the strength of some asylum claims—not because the underlying facts have changed, but because the official forms now fail to reflect the applicant’s true identity.
For example:
- A non-binary person applying for asylum after being targeted in their home country may now have to select “Male” or “Female” on their asylum application, despite not identifying as either.
- This mismatch may lead adjudicators to question the applicant’s identity, possibly weakening the strength of the claim or requiring added clarification and documentation.
- In defensive asylum cases—where applicants are in removal proceedings—such inconsistencies could create unnecessary hurdles and complicate the evidentiary presentation.
What Can Applicants Do?
Despite the change, individuals can still pursue asylum based on gender identity. The underlying eligibility criteria remain the same. However, applicants should be prepared to clearly explain any differences between their stated identity and the gender marker required on USCIS forms.
Applicants are encouraged to:
- Include a personal declaration explaining their gender identity in detail and how it relates to their fear of persecution.
- Provide evidence such as affidavits, country condition reports, or expert testimony that supports the claim.
- Work with an experienced immigration attorney who can help present the claim effectively and prepare for any questions that might arise from the new form limitations.
The new USCIS policy on gender markers may seem like a technical update, but for asylum seekers fleeing gender-based persecution, it has real implications. While individuals are still legally eligible to seek protection, the limitation to binary gender options could make it more difficult to fully and clearly present their case.
If you or someone you know is facing immigration challenges related to gender identity—or is concerned about how this policy may impact an asylum claim—please contact Santos Lloyd Law Firm to schedule a consultation with one of our experienced immigration attorneys. We’re here to help ensure your voice is heard and your case is handled with the care and expertise it deserves.
This blog is not intended to be legal advice and nothing here should be construed as establishing an attorney client relationship. Please schedule a consultation with an immigration attorney before acting on any information read here.
Angelica Rice
Similar Posts
In January 2025, the U.S. Congress passed the Laken Riley Act , marking a significant shift in immigration enforcement policy. The Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain certain non-U.S. nationals who have been arrested for theft-related offenses such as burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. Under this Act, the Department of Homeland Security must detain an individual who: (1) is unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission; and (2) has been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. The Act also authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement. It authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a: Decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody; Failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews; Failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country; Violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or Failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States. The Act's stringent detention requirements may lead to increased fear and uncertainty within immigrant communities. Individuals who are merely accused of certain crimes could face mandatory detention. The Act may also affect legal immigration processes. Increased detention and deportation efforts could strain resources, potentially leading to delays in processing visas and asylum applications. Given the evolving legal landscape: Stay Informed and/or Seek Legal Counsel - Consult with your immigration attorney to understand how new laws and policies may affect your situation and if you or someone you know is facing immigration-related legal issues. Know Your Rights - Familiarize yourself with your legal rights, especially concerning interactions with law enforcement and immigration authorities. Community Engagement - Participate in community organizations that provide support and resources for immigrants, fostering a network of assistance and advocacy. If you have any questions or would like to consult with an experienced immigration attorney, contact our office to schedule a consultation.
In a renewed wave of enforcement, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has started sending formal alerts to certain F-1 students participating in Optional Practical Training (OPT), flagging that their records reflect over 90 days without any reported employment. These students have been advised to update their employment status in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) within 15 days. Failure to take timely corrective action may lead to the termination of the student's SEVIS record, effectively marking them as out of status, and may ultimately trigger removal proceedings. The notices are intended as a warning that students who do not comply with OPT reporting obligations are at risk of serious immigration consequences. Understanding OPT and Its Unemployment Limits Optional Practical Training (commonly referred to as “OPT”) is a work authorization benefit that allows eligible F-1 international students to gain hands-on experience in their field of study. Students may apply for pre-completion OPT (while still in school) or post-completion OPT (after graduation), typically for up to 12 months. Those with degrees in qualifying STEM fields may apply for an additional 24-month STEM OPT extension, giving them a total of 36 months of work authorization in the U.S. To maintain valid F-1 status while on OPT, students must remain actively employed in a position related to their field of study. The amount of time a student may remain in the United States while on OPT without being properly employed is capped at: 90 days during the standard 12-month post-completion OPT, and 150 days for those on the STEM OPT extension, which includes any days of unemployment accrued during the initial OPT period. These unemployment limits are cumulative and enforced strictly through SEVIS monitoring. What Should F-1 Students Do? If you are an F-1 student on OPT or STEM OPT and receive a warning or are unsure about your compliance status, act quickly: Contact your Designated School Official (DSO) immediately to review and, if necessary, update your SEVIS record. Ensure all employment is properly documented and reported through your school’s international office. Do not ignore warning notices, as failure to respond may lead to SEVIS termination and potentially the initiation of removal proceedings. It is also advisable to consult with a qualified immigration attorney to explore available options and understand how enforcement actions may affect your status or future immigration plans. If you received a notice or have questions about your F-1 status, our attorneys are here to help you take the right steps to protect your future in the United States. Contact us today to schedule a consultation.
In recent months, the U.S. government has intensified its vetting procedures for individuals seeking entry into the United States, whether through visa applications abroad or inspection at ports of entry. This shift, prioritized by the current administration, is having a noticeable impact on immigrants, visa holders, and even lawful permanent residents (LPRs). At U.S. consulates worldwide, applicants are experiencing increased delays , often being placed into administrative processing under Section 221(g) or referred for Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs) , which can significantly prolong visa issuance. Officers are now engaging in deeper reviews of applicants' backgrounds, including their t ravel histories, social media accounts, and foreign ties . This scrutiny applies to a wide range of visa categories, from visitor visas to employment-based petitions. Importantly, officers are exercising broader discretion when deciding who qualifies for a visa, making the process more unpredictable, even for applicants with strong cases. This enhanced vetting does not end at the consulate. Individuals entering the U.S. — even those with valid visas or green cards — are increasingly subject to prolonged secondary inspections by Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Officers may ask detailed questions about prior immigration history, travel patterns, and social media activity. In some cases, travelers are asked to provide access to their electronic devices for further inspection. There are also growing reports of travelers being referred to deferred inspection or even issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) for removal proceedings, despite previously lawful entries. While some of these practices have existed in the past, the current administration has formalized and expanded them. Experts warn that additional travel restrictions or targeted bans could also emerge as part of the administration’s enforcement priorities. For employment-based applicants, these delays and complications can severely impact U.S. businesses and foreign nationals who contribute critical skills to the U.S. economy. It is more important than ever to be well-prepared before attending a visa interview or traveling internationally. Understanding your rights and preparing thoroughly can help you navigate this uncertain landscape. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C. , our immigration attorneys are ready to guide you through this evolving process and ensure you are informed, supported, and protected. Please contact us if you have questions or need assistance.
In 2025, the immigration landscape continues to shift under the weight of national security concerns, ushered in by Executive Order “ Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats. ” This directive tasks federal agencies—including the U.S. Department of State—with implementing enhanced screening and vetting protocols for all foreign nationals seeking visas or other immigration benefits. The result? A dramatically intensified vetting process, along with mounting concerns from immigrants, attorneys, and civil liberties advocates alike. Traditionally, airport security focused on verifying travel documents and screening for prohibited items, while consular officers assessed the legitimacy of visa petitions and the admissibility of applicants. Extreme vetting, however, represents a significant shift toward a far more invasive and comprehensive investigative process. It now includes detailed background checks, biometric verification, digital forensics, and expansive scrutiny of an applicant’s online presence and criminal or financial records. Since President Trump’s second term began in January 2025, the implementation of extreme vetting has expanded rapidly. Today, border screenings go far beyond routine document checks, encompassing a full-scale evaluation of a traveler’s digital life. This pivot reflects the administration’s intensified focus on national security, but it has also triggered urgent discussions about privacy, due process, and the fairness of modern immigration enforcement. At U.S. ports of entry—especially airports—noncitizens are now subject to rigorous and invasive procedures, including: Inspection of cell phones, laptops, and other devices (including deleted content) Review of social media activity on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) Biometric scanning, including fingerprinting and facial recognition These measures are no longer confined to travelers from high-risk countries. In practice, extreme vetting applies broadly across all nationalities, and increasingly affects lawful permanent residents as well. For noncitizens, this new landscape introduces a heightened level of uncertainty and vulnerability. Delays at U.S. consulates for visa issuance or renewal are becoming routine. Travelers must now be acutely aware of these changes, and those attending consular interviews or seeking visa renewals should be prepared to provide additional documentation verifying their maintenance of status, compliance with visa conditions, and the bona fide nature of their visa applications. It is critical to organize supporting materials in advance and be ready to answer questions about employment, education, travel history, and online activity. As the U.S. government continues to expand its use of data-driven risk assessment tools, travelers must adapt to a new normal, one where preparation is essential to navigating the immigration system without disruption.
The United States has long been a destination for the world’s most talented athletes—not only to compete at the highest level, but to access world-class training, coaching opportunities, and long-term career prospects. Whether on the field, in the ring, or across the chessboard, athletes from across the globe are finding immigration pathways that allow them to pursue their athletic and professional goals in the U.S. U.S. immigration law offers several visa and green card options designed specifically for individuals with extraordinary athletic talent. These include the P-1A visa for internationally recognized athletes, the O-1A visa for individuals of extraordinary ability, and the EB-1A immigrant petition, which can lead to permanent residency and ultimately, U.S. citizenship. The P-1A visa is commonly used by professional athletes coming to the U.S. to compete in a specific event or season. This applies not only to individual athletes but also to members of teams or clubs recognized internationally. It is widely used by soccer players, basketball players, MMA fighters, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu competitors, and even elite chess players. Athletes must demonstrate a high level of international recognition and a record of performance in their sport. The O-1A visa is a strong option for coaches who demonstrate extraordinary ability, typically evidenced by championship titles, sustained winning records, or recognition as integral to their team’s success. To qualify, a coach must establish that their expertise places them among the small percentage of top professionals in their field. For athletes seeking permanent status in the U.S., the EB-1A immigrant petition —often referred to as the “extraordinary ability green card”—provides a direct path to lawful permanent residency. It requires clear documentation that the individual is among the very best in their sport and has achieved sustained national or international success. Unlike other green card categories, the EB-1A does not require employer sponsorship and can be self-petitioned. This has become a common path for MMA world champions, BJJ black belt medalists, Olympic athletes, and chess grandmasters—many of whom now represent the U.S. at the highest levels of international competition. It’s important to note that U.S. immigration law defines “athlete” broadly. Whether you are a professional football player in Europe, a sprinter from the Caribbean, a judoka, a gymnast, or a grandmaster in chess, your achievements may qualify under these categories if they are properly documented and presented. The key is a consistent record of excellence and recognition in your sport on a national or international scale. Our office specializes in these types of immigration matters. Whether you are an individual athlete looking to relocate or an organization seeking to bring international talent to your roster, we offer tailored legal strategies to support your goals. If you are exploring options to compete, train, or build your future in the U.S., we’re here to help you take the next step.
In January 2025, the U.S. Congress passed the Laken Riley Act , marking a significant shift in immigration enforcement policy. The Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain certain non-U.S. nationals who have been arrested for theft-related offenses such as burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. Under this Act, the Department of Homeland Security must detain an individual who: (1) is unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission; and (2) has been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. The Act also authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement. It authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a: Decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody; Failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews; Failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country; Violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or Failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States. The Act's stringent detention requirements may lead to increased fear and uncertainty within immigrant communities. Individuals who are merely accused of certain crimes could face mandatory detention. The Act may also affect legal immigration processes. Increased detention and deportation efforts could strain resources, potentially leading to delays in processing visas and asylum applications. Given the evolving legal landscape: Stay Informed and/or Seek Legal Counsel - Consult with your immigration attorney to understand how new laws and policies may affect your situation and if you or someone you know is facing immigration-related legal issues. Know Your Rights - Familiarize yourself with your legal rights, especially concerning interactions with law enforcement and immigration authorities. Community Engagement - Participate in community organizations that provide support and resources for immigrants, fostering a network of assistance and advocacy. If you have any questions or would like to consult with an experienced immigration attorney, contact our office to schedule a consultation.
In a renewed wave of enforcement, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has started sending formal alerts to certain F-1 students participating in Optional Practical Training (OPT), flagging that their records reflect over 90 days without any reported employment. These students have been advised to update their employment status in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) within 15 days. Failure to take timely corrective action may lead to the termination of the student's SEVIS record, effectively marking them as out of status, and may ultimately trigger removal proceedings. The notices are intended as a warning that students who do not comply with OPT reporting obligations are at risk of serious immigration consequences. Understanding OPT and Its Unemployment Limits Optional Practical Training (commonly referred to as “OPT”) is a work authorization benefit that allows eligible F-1 international students to gain hands-on experience in their field of study. Students may apply for pre-completion OPT (while still in school) or post-completion OPT (after graduation), typically for up to 12 months. Those with degrees in qualifying STEM fields may apply for an additional 24-month STEM OPT extension, giving them a total of 36 months of work authorization in the U.S. To maintain valid F-1 status while on OPT, students must remain actively employed in a position related to their field of study. The amount of time a student may remain in the United States while on OPT without being properly employed is capped at: 90 days during the standard 12-month post-completion OPT, and 150 days for those on the STEM OPT extension, which includes any days of unemployment accrued during the initial OPT period. These unemployment limits are cumulative and enforced strictly through SEVIS monitoring. What Should F-1 Students Do? If you are an F-1 student on OPT or STEM OPT and receive a warning or are unsure about your compliance status, act quickly: Contact your Designated School Official (DSO) immediately to review and, if necessary, update your SEVIS record. Ensure all employment is properly documented and reported through your school’s international office. Do not ignore warning notices, as failure to respond may lead to SEVIS termination and potentially the initiation of removal proceedings. It is also advisable to consult with a qualified immigration attorney to explore available options and understand how enforcement actions may affect your status or future immigration plans. If you received a notice or have questions about your F-1 status, our attorneys are here to help you take the right steps to protect your future in the United States. Contact us today to schedule a consultation.
