CBP One Expands Number of Appointments, Turns App On Again at Laredo Port of Entry
The asylum app known as CBP One continues to evolve in real time and is becoming a normalized tool of border control.
CBP One has been around for a few years, but the app seems to have found its niche: managing flows of asylum seekers into the United States at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.
At just over six months since CBP One was rolled out to all asylum seekers in January, the policies and practices surrounding CBP One continue to evolve. Users still report glitchy experiences with the app, including this screenshot below shared by Christina Asencio of Human Rights First on Twitter. But in other ways, the app is improving. Here are two announcements from this week that illustrate how CBP One is becoming a normalized part of border control.
CBP One Appointments Increase to 1,450 Per Day
CBP One announced on Friday that the number of appointments available through CBP increased from 1,250 to 1,450. CBP One is a new smartphone app that asylum seekers are now required to use to enter the country. The number of appointments per day is distributed across seven ports of entry along the border, including Nogales, Brownsville, Eagle Pass, Hidalgo, El Paso, Calexico, and San Ysidro.
The announcement highlights what the agency clearly considered to be the success of CBP One and of the administration’s current policy posture:
“From May 12 through June 23, more than 49,000 noncitizens have presented at Southwest border ports of entry through scheduled CBP One™ appointments for inspection under Title 8 and determination of admissibility on a case-by-case basis, while unlawful entries between ports of entry have declined by 64 percent.”
At a time when the Biden administration is facing harsh criticism and new lawsuits over new asylum policies (including this one filed just last week), the fact that CBP One is expanding appointments is something of a bright spot for asylum advocates and represents the administration’s commitment to expanding lawful pathways.
The Department of Homeland Security doesn’t exactly have a stellar record of real-time responsiveness when it comes to migrant rights. So when CBP One was announced in January, it was reasonable to be skeptical of how the app would be used in the coming months. This announcement, as well as other recent changes to how CBP One functions, suggest that CBP is serious about using this app as a real-time policy tool that, dare I say, is actually meaningfully improving over time.
As I wrote in my recent article on CBP One, “this level of responsiveness is unique within the U.S. immigration system where the amount of migrant-facing technological innovation is rare.” Thus, even though I remain skeptical of the broader social context and consequences of the appification of the border, I am genuinely interested in if and how the analysis changes with changes to the app itself.
CBP One Switched on Again for Laredo After a Month-Long Suspension
Speaking of the double-edged sword of “responsiveness”, here’s an update on the situation in Laredo. On June 3, CBP One appointments were shut off for migrants at the port of entry in Laredo, Texas following reports of extortion and other efforts by state and non-state actors to rob, kidnap, and hold asylum seekers for ransom. Laredo’s sister city in Mexico, Nuevo Laredo, has become notoriously dangerous as of late.
In my post on the suspension of new CBP One appointments, I argued that the ability to switch asylum access off and on in this way represented just one of the potential consequences of digitizing asylum in this way. Whether you see that kind of responsiveness as a good thing or a bad thing depends somewhat on your views on asylum, but it certainly represents a significant operational change. And as I mentioned above, this level of responsiveness can cut both ways.
By the end of this week, however, Sandra Sanchez reports that CBP One was available once again. It’s not clear to me based on the current reporting precisely why CBP One appointments were suspended, since (a) violence against migrants is not exactly new and (b) asylum is a process for providing protection (which might suggest that one would increase rather decrease access at a time like that).
I’m not trying to invent a complex story where only a simple one exists, but I feel like I’m missing a plot point here. Prior reporting did mention that migrants with CBP One appointments were being targeted directly, which makes me wonder if there was a vulnerability or some other form of exploitation happening behind the scenes that CBP is reluctant to share publicly. If you know more, feel free to comment below or contact me privately.
I’ll continue to track updates with CBP One and summarize them here regularly.
PS: Before to leave, would you mind leaving a like below? It goes a long way to helping get this in front of new readers, and I’d appreciate it enormously. Thanks!
Support public scholarship.
Thank you for reading. If you would like to support public scholarship and receive this newsletter in your inbox, click below to subscribe for free. And if you find this information useful, consider sharing it online or with friends and colleagues. I maintain a barebones site at austinkocher.com and I share immigration data, news, and research on Mastodon (@austinkocher), Twitter (@ackocher), and Instagram (@austinkocher). You can see my scholarly work on Google Scholar here.
Austin, I so appreciate your reports! They always provide so much information. CBP One's improvement gives me, dare I say, a little hope for our asylum seeking brothers and sisters. I do have a very cynical thought about why those who have appointments would be targeted. Who other than CBP would know that they have appointments...?🤔
Hello Austin, i have an appointment at the U.S border on July 12, if you like i could give you an interview after i get accepted.