HB698, the Asylum Accountability Act, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permanently bar aliens who are ordered removed after failing to appear at a removal proceeding from becoming permanent residents, except in cases where exceptional circumstances apply. The core mechanism is Section 2, which would strike the current 10-year bar in INA 240(b)(7), removing the time-limited path to adjustment and instead imposing a permanent bar on status adjustment for these individuals.
The bill’s scope is narrow: it targets adjustment of status for those subject to removal orders following a missed appearance and does not introduce new removal grounds or asylum policy, though it creates a stricter consequence for failure to appear.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends INA 240(b)(7) by striking the 10-year limitation after a final removal order, thereby creating a permanent bar on whether an alien who failed to appear can adjust to permanent resident status, with a note that exceptional circumstances could qualify for an exception.
Who It Affects
Individuals who were ordered removed after failing to appear at a removal proceeding, and who would otherwise seek permanent residency, plus the agencies that administer adjustment of status.
Why It Matters
This sets a new, permanent consequence for non-appearance, aiming to deter non-compliance and streamline the path to resolution for removal orders, while raising questions about definitional standards for exceptional circumstances.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Asylum Accountability Act proposes a targeted change to how the immigration system handles people who miss their removal hearings. By permanently barring adjustment of status for those who are ordered removed after failing to appear, the bill eliminates the existing time-based window (10 years) for eligibility to become a permanent resident.
The only caveat in the title is that exceptional circumstances could alter how the rule applies in a given case, but the text of Section 2 itself does not specify what counts as exceptional circumstances. In practical terms, individuals who miss their hearings and subsequently receive removal orders would face a permanent barrier to obtaining lawful permanent resident status, barring any defined exceptions.
The bill does not create new pathways or protections beyond this change; it is a narrow adjustment to the consequences tied to missing a removal hearing. For compliance and enforcement teams, the key question is how “exceptional circumstances” will be interpreted and applied, which is not defined in the bill text.
Stakeholders should anticipate how this permanent bar would interact with existing relief mechanisms, waivers, or future regulatory guidance, if any.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill permanently bars adjustment of status for aliens ordered removed after failing to appear at a removal proceeding.
It amends INA 240(b)(7) by striking the 10-year period, creating a permanent bar.
The text references “exceptional circumstances” but does not define them.
The act is titled the Asylum Accountability Act and introduced January 23, 2025.
The amendment affects only the adjustment of status pathway, not other immigration relief or removal grounds.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Section 1 designates the act as the “Asylum Accountability Act.” This is a naming provision with no substantive policy change by itself, but it signals the legislative framing and intent that accountability for failures to appear is central to the bill.
Permanent ineligibility for adjustment of status after failure to appear
Section 2 amends INA 240(b)(7) by striking the language that imposed a 10-year window after the entry of a final removal order. The practical effect is to create a permanent bar on any adjustment of status for aliens who were ordered removed following a failure to appear, with the caveat that exceptional circumstances could alter how the rule applies. This leaves undefined what qualifies as exceptional circumstances, creating potential interpretation gaps and calls for future regulatory guidance or adjudicatory clarification.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- DHS enforcement components (ICE, CBP) benefit from a clearer deterrent against missing hearings and a more predictable enforcement posture.
- EOIR and the Department of Justice may benefit from more predictable case outcomes and potentially reduced backlog related to undismissed or unresolved appearance issues.
- Federal policymakers advocating for asylum accountability gain a statutory tool to deter non-appearance and to reinforce compliance with removal orders.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individuals ordered removed who failed to appear and who would have sought permanent residency face permanent ineligibility, potentially cutting off pathways they might have pursued if exceptional circumstances applied.
- Immigrant communities potentially affected by stricter enforcement and harsher penalties for absence from hearings, with possible chilling effects on engagement with the immigration system.
- Immigration attorneys and nonprofit providers may see increased demand for counsel on how exceptional circumstances can be argued and for navigating a stricter status-adjustment landscape.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether a permanent bar for failure to appear strikes the right balance between deterring non-compliance and protecting individuals who may have legitimate, mitigating reasons for missing a hearing, given the lack of defined criteria for exceptional circumstances.
The bill introduces a stark penalty framework for failure to appear in removal proceedings, replacing a time-limited bar with a permanent one. This creates a policy tension between deterrence and due process: missing a hearing can occur for reasons ranging from misunderstandings and access barriers to emergencies, yet the bill leaves “exceptional circumstances” undefined in the statutory text, leaving room for discretionary interpretation.
The absence of a defined mechanism for evaluating exceptional circumstances raises implementation risks, including potential inconsistency across adjudications and concerns about individuals’ ability to present mitigating factors. There are no transitional provisions or accompanying guidance in the text to address how this permanent bar would interact with parallel relief pathways or humanitarian protections.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.