Under U.S. immigration law, asylum serves as a critical avenue for individuals fleeing persecution in their home countries based on race, religion, nationality, political beliefs, or their affiliation with certain social groups.
Those seeking refuge can apply for asylum either while in the U.S. or upon their arrival.
Around the U.S.-Mexico Border
A significant number of asylum seekers have turned to the U.S.-Mexico border in hopes of finding safety.
However, a policy change from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2016 authorized Customs and Border Protection officials to implement a controversial “metering” system.
Officially enacted in 2018, this system allowed border agents to limit entry when a port of entry was crowded.
As a result, many aspiring asylum seekers were forced to wait in Mexico for extended periods, encountering severe hardships and, in tragic cases, losing their lives.
Legal Challenges and Policy Changes
In response to this metering policy, an immigrant rights organization, supported by a group of affected asylum seekers, decided to take legal action.
As the litigation progressed, the DHS and the Department of Justice introduced the Asylum Transit Rule.
This new regulation imposed strict limitations on asylum eligibility for individuals who crossed the Mexican land border on or after July 16, 2019, after passing through at least one other country.
The only exceptions were for those who had sought asylum in an intervening country and received an unfavorable decision.
The impact of the Asylum Transit Rule was devastating for many individuals affected by the metering policy.
Those who had been denied entry due to metering found themselves disqualified for asylum under this new regulation, even though it was enacted after their initial attempts at the border.
The plaintiffs requested the court to block the enforcement of this new rule for a specific group of foreign nationals—non-Mexican asylum seekers who were prevented from directly applying for asylum before the cutoff date due to the prevailing metering policy.
Court Rulings
Initially, the trial court reached a conclusion stating that the metering policy contravened federal law.
It instructed the government to refrain from applying the Asylum Transit Rule to eligible individuals in the defined class.
Furthermore, it ordered the government to locate and inform these individuals about the court’s decision during their immigration proceedings or while they were in DHS custody.
The court also mandated a reexamination of previous asylum denials for potential class members if they were facing removal proceedings.
Upon review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit mirrored the trial court’s findings, affirming that the metering policy was unlawful.
The appellate court upheld the ruling protecting the specific group of foreign nationals from the implications of the Asylum Transit Rule.
However, it overturned the requirement for the government to revisit earlier denial decisions proactively.
Navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law can be daunting for asylum seekers.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision strives to lighten some of these burdens, ensuring that individuals pursuing asylum don’t face unnecessary hurdles beyond what the legal framework permits.
Source: News