ImmigrationCourt Allows Trump Asylum Rules to Take Effect in California, Arizona

Published 16 August 2019

A federal appeals court’s on Friday allowed the Trump administration partially to begin and reject asylum seekers at some parts of the U.S. The administration’s rule would reject asylum of migrants who passed through a third country but failed to apply for asylum in that country. The rule does not apply to Mexican seekers of asylum. The ruling from the ninth U.S. circuit court of appeals limited a lower court’s order against Donald Trump’s policy to California and Arizona. Under the ruling, U.S. district judge Jon Tigar’s 24 July 2019 order will not apply to New Mexico or Texas. The new rule would deny asylum to those migrants who have traveled through a country considered by the United States to be “safe,” and where the migrant should have, therefore, applied for asylum before continuing the journey to the United States.

A federal appeals court’s on Friday allowed the Trump administration partially to begin and reject asylum seekers at some parts of the U.S.

The administration’s rule would reject asylum of migrants who passed through a third country but failed to apply for asylum in that country. The rule does not apply to Mexican seekers of asylum.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the ruling from the ninth U.S. circuit court of appeals limited a lower court’s order against Donald Trump’s policy to California and Arizona. Under the ruling, U.S. district judge Jon Tigar’s 24 July 2019 order will not apply to New Mexico or Texas.

The two busiest areas for border crossings are in south Texas’ Rio Grande Valley and the area around El Paso, which includes New Mexico. About 46,500 people in July crossed the U.S. border without permission in those two regions.

In addition to asylum seekers from Central America, the policy would to migrants from Africa, Asia and South America.

Under U.S. law, people may request asylum when they arrive in the U.S., regardless of how they enter. The new rule would deny asylum to those migrants who have traveled through a country considered by the United States to be “safe,” and where the migrant should have, therefore, applied for asylum before continuing the journey to the United States.

The Journal notes that about 30,000 people have been returned to Mexico to await asylum hearings under the government’s Migrant Protection Protocols program. Tens of thousands of others are waiting in shelters and camps to present themselves to border agents at official ports of entry.

Courts last year prevented the administration from implementing earlier restrictions that would have banned asylum claims by migrants who crossed into the U.S. illegally. But the Ninth Circuit earlier this year did allow the administration to implement rules known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, often called “Remain in Mexico.” Under these rules, families have been sent to wait in Mexico for their claims to be adjudicated in the U.S.

Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the plaintiffs, applauded the court ruling and said challengers to the restrictions would move to submit additional information in court to show why a nationwide injunction would be appropriate.

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision saying we are likely to prevail is an enormous victory,” Mr. Gelernt said. “The Trump administration argues vigorously that this latest asylum ban, like the first asylum ban, was lawful and in both instances a federal appeals court disagreed.”