By Brent Kendall and Louise Radnofsky
A federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration from imposing tough asylum restrictions on Central Americans who arrive at the border in California and Arizona, but it allowed the White House to proceed in other border states.
In a mixed ruling on asylum seekers, the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the administration hadn’t made a strong showing that its policy—which effectively bars asylum claims from Central American migrants who pass through any other country on the way to the U.S.—was lawful. It said the restrictions couldn’t be imposed within the West Coast circuit, which includes the states of California and Arizona.
But the court also ruled that a trial judge had been incorrect to block the Trump rules nationwide, and the appeals court refused to do so.
Consequently, the ruling means that, for now, the Trump administration can impose the asylum restrictions in New Mexico and Texas, which are in different judicial circuits. The outcome could create additional confusion at the border in the near term, where Central American families are already navigating a tangle of contradictory policies.
The rules in question, issued by the Trump administration in July, would have effectively cut off access to the U.S. asylum system to those arriving on foot from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. The rules said Central American migrants had to seek asylum—and be denied—in another country first. A district judge in California blocked the restrictions nationwide on July 24, hours after a judge in Washington, D.C., decided to leave the Trump policy in place.
President Trump has long railed against the Ninth Circuit, criticizing liberal judges there for blocking his immigration initiatives. But two of the three judges involved in Friday’s case were appointed by Republican presidents: Judge Milan Smith, a George W. Bush nominee, and Judge Mark Bennett, whom Mr. Trump nominated last year.
Those two, plus Judge A. Wallace Tashima, a Clinton appointee, all concluded the administration hadn’t shown that it would likely win its defense of the asylum restrictions when the appeals court gives the case full consideration later this year.
The two Republican appointees, however, formed a majority in concluding that legal challengers—civil-rights and immigration groups—hadn’t demonstrated that they were entitled to have the restrictions blocked throughout the U.S.
“Our approach—granting a more limited injunction—allows other litigants wishing to challenge the rule to do so” in other circuits, the majority said, and would allow those courts to weigh in.
That portion of the court’s order offered a boost for the Trump administration, which has objected repeatedly to court injunctions that blocked White House policies nationwide.
In dissent, Judge Tashima said the “split-the-baby” court order created the prospect that asylum law may be administered differently in Texas than California.
The Justice Department, which is defending the asylum restrictions in court, declined to comment. The White House said it disagreed with the circuit’s decision to uphold the injunction within its jurisdiction but added it would “now be able to apply the rule at issue to curb asylum abuse outside of the Ninth Circuit. We look forward to having the injunction lifted in its entirety on appeal.”
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.”
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.
Under pressure from the Trump administration, Guatemala also agreed to require migrants traveling through to the U.S. to seek asylum there instead of at the U.S.-Mexico border, signing what White House officials said was a safe third-country agreement. That has already impeded the journeys of many people fleeing violence and poverty in Honduras and El Salvador to the U.S. border.
In other legal action Friday, attorneys general representing California, Maine, Oregon, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new “public charge” policy that would deny permanent residence to legal immigrants who use some public-assistance programs and bar U.S. entry for others deemed likely to use the programs.
“This cruel policy would force working parents and families across the nation to forego basic necessities like food, housing, and healthcare out of fear,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, said Friday.
Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, has said the new regulation “lies squarely within existing law and we expect this rule to withstand any legal challenges.”
For more information, go to: http://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment