Part I of this Article provides an overview of the various administrative and adjudicative entities involved in determining asylum claims to explain the resulting procedural disaster that occurred in the Alvarado case. Part II discusses the reasons why the Proposed Rule stalled within the context of the additional administrative complications resulting from post-September 11 regulations, which adversely impacted domestic violence asylum seekers. Part III discusses the impact of the Proposed Rule on these types of cases over the past ten years and the resulting disparate outcomes. Part IV discusses of the leading, large-scale reform proposals tackling the administrative woes of immigration adjudication and offers alternate, incremental, and therefore more politically viable solutions: finalizing regulations regarding gender-based asylum claims and removing the power to influence immigration policy and procedural from the attorney general's office. These incremental solutions draw on administrative law solutions to repair the immigration system for domestic violence asylum seekers.