U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks on infrastructure during an event at the Amtrak maintenance facility in Bear, Delaware, U.S., Nov. 6, 2023. Portal/Leah Millis/File Photo Acquire License Rights
Nov 7 (Portal) – A lawyer for U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration told an appeals court on Tuesday that a judge wrongly blocked a rule imposing new restrictions on asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, heard the government’s appeal of a decision that said the rule passed earlier this year violated federal immigration law, which specifically states that the illegal Crossing the border should not be allowed bar to asylum.
The challenge to the rule was brought by immigrant advocacy groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Biden, a Democrat, took office in 2021 promising to reverse many of Republican former President Donald Trump’s harsh policies. However, he has taken many tough border measures as record numbers of migrants have been caught crossing the border illegally.
The regulation assumes that most migrants are ineligible for asylum if they have traveled through other countries without first seeking protection there or if they crossed the border illegally instead of arriving at a designated port of entry.
The 9th Circuit in August stayed the judge’s decision blocking the rule, allowing it to remain in effect pending the outcome of the appeal.
Brian Boynton of the U.S. Justice Department argued Tuesday that the rule is valid because it does not categorically prohibit migrants from receiving asylum, but rather contains various exceptions to rebut the presumption that they are not entitled to asylum.
As of September, 12% of migrants who requested an exemption under the rule had received it, Boynton said.
But that statistic simply shows that the vast majority of migrants are not considered for asylum at all because of the way they entered the U.S., a violation of immigration law, said ACLU attorney Spencer Amdur in court.
“Such a small exception cannot make the difference in the legality of the rule,” Amdur said.
The judges gave no indication of their stance during the hour-long hearing. However, two of them noted that federal immigration law appears to give the government broad discretion to consider all relevant factors in deciding who ultimately receives asylum protection.
If mode of entry can be taken into account in the final asylum decision, it makes sense that it would be a factor in determining whether a migrant can even apply, District Judge Lawrence VanDyke said.
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; Editing by Deepa Babington
Our standards: The Thomson Portal Trust Principles.
Acquire license rights, opens new tab