What if the outcome of an asylum case isn’t decided by the facts — but by when someone entered the country?
In this episode, CD Law partners Miguel Custodio and Vineet Dubey sit down with immigration attorney Liz Torres for a candid conversation about asylum policy, courtroom realities, and a system she says can leave even the strongest cases without a path forward.
From decades inside immigration court to the human toll of removal proceedings, Torres offers an unfiltered look at how immigration law is playing out in real time.
With 26 years of experience, Torres says removal proceedings make up the majority of her work — and come with constant challenges.
Clients often spend years waiting for hearings, building cases, and preparing testimony, only to face sudden policy barriers that can override everything.
“Doesn’t matter if you’ve been waiting three years for a hearing,” she said. “Doesn’t matter. None of this matters. Your due process rights don’t matter.”
A major focus of the conversation is asylum cooperative agreements, or ACAs, which can require migrants to seek asylum in other countries rather than the United States.
Torres says these policies have dramatically changed outcomes for many of her clients.
“I have claim after claim after claim that are colorable claims that are great claims that would have won asylum,” she said. “But because they entered after November 2019, they’re subject to these ACAs.”
Under the policy, individuals may be sent to alternative countries regardless of their personal history or safety concerns.
Torres described how small differences in timing can determine whether someone is allowed to pursue a case.
She pointed to one client who is able to move forward simply because of when she entered the country.
“She just happened to be here at the right time,” Torres said.
For others, she says, the outcome is already decided before their case is fully heard.
“You can’t even file it anymore,” she said.
Torres also explained how immigration court differs from other legal systems.
Judges and government attorneys operate under the same broader umbrella, which can create an uneven dynamic for those seeking relief.
“And you’re basically up against two people that work for the same entity,” she said.
She added that traditional evidentiary standards don’t apply in the same way.
“The federal rules of evidence don’t apply. They are suggestions,” she said. “Anything goes.”
Throughout the conversation, Torres emphasized how emotionally demanding immigration law can be.
Attorneys regularly hear traumatic stories and navigate outcomes that can take years to resolve — or never resolve at all.
“We all have the same kind of stories,” she said. “And it’s heart wrenching. It really, really is.”
Many attorneys, she said, eventually leave this area of law because of the toll it takes.
To continue doing the work, Torres says she has had to develop ways to cope with the emotional weight.
“I do my best, and then I let it go,” she said.
She described focusing on what she can control — supporting her clients, explaining their options, and helping them prepare for outcomes — while accepting that the system itself is often beyond her influence.
“If I try to control what I can’t control, I can drive myself insane,” she said.
For those entering the legal profession, Torres stresses the importance of staying grounded in purpose while learning how to detach.
“To stay the course, to follow their heart,” she said.
And most importantly: “Remember your why. Don’t forget your why.”
This episode is for:
Law students interested in immigration law
Attorneys navigating high-stress practice areas
Professionals thinking about burnout and sustainability
Anyone seeking insight into how immigration policy plays out in real cases
It’s a conversation about more than the law. It’s about people, persistence, and the reality of practicing in a complex system.
Grab a glass of wine and join Miguel Custodio and Vineet Dubey for this conversation with Liz Torres.
Sidebar Sessions is available now on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify.