A federal judge blocked this Friday the largest package of restrictions against the right to asylum designed by the Administration of President Donald Trump, which he planned to launch this Monday, less than two weeks after the new president’s inauguration elected, Democrat Joe Biden.
The ruling has limited impact because the government has largely suspended the right to asylum at the border with Mexico during the coronavirus pandemic, citing public health concerns .
Even so, some immigrants who can still apply for asylum would have had their right obstructed, and the rest would have felt it when the bans were lifted derived from the coronavirus.
The Trump Administration argued that the measures were an adequate response to a system that, in its opinion, is plagued by abuses and overwhelmed by meritless claims.
But Federal Judge James Donato in San Francisco stood up he side of the activist groups that tried to stop the measures under the premise that the acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf, lacks the authority to impose these broad rules without having been confirmed by the Senate. Donato, who was appointed to the position in 2013 by former President Barack Obama, wrote that Wolf’s appointment violated the established order of succession . He said it was the fifth time that a court ruled against the Department of Homeland Security for the same reasons.
“The Government has recycled exactly the same legal and factual assertions made in previous cases, as if they had not been solidly rejected in well-founded written opinions by various courts,” Donato wrote. “This is a worrying litigation strategy. Indeed, the Government continues to crash the same car against the same doors, hoping that one day it will be able to go through them ”, he added. The Trump Administration may appeal this ruling.
The rules sought to redefine the requirements for a person to qualify for asylum and other similar forms of humanitarian protection if they face persecution in their home countries. L the restrictions would have broadened the grounds for an immigration judge (dependent on the Department of Justice, and therefore the Government in the last instance) consider the requests “frivolous” and may reject them.
Aaron Frankel, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, called the rules “nothing less than an attempt to end the asylum system. ”
Asylum is a legal protection designed for people fleeing persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political beliefs or membership of a social group. Any foreigner who steps on US soil has the legal right to request asylum , in accordance with domestic laws and the obligations of international treaties.
The rules would limit the types of persecution and the severity of the threats for which asylum is granted. Applicants seeking protection on the basis of gender or those who claim to have been the target of gangs, “rogue” government officials, or “outlaw organizations” would likely not be eligible for asylum.
Immigration judges would be ordered to be more selective when it comes to grant asylum applications and would allow them to deny most applications without a court hearing.
They would also have had to weigh several new factors against the ability of an applicant to obtain protections, including not being able to pay taxes. Criminal record followed would count against an asylum seeker even if their sentences were expunged.
According to related measures With the pandemic in place since March, approximately nine out of every 10 people detained at the border are immediately expelled for public health reasons. The rest are processed under immigration laws, which include the right to seek asylum.
The Trump Administration has already instituted a number of policies restricting asylum, including making asylum seekers Wait in Mexico while your claims are heard in a U.S. immigration court.
Biden is expected to reverse some of Trump’s restrictive asylum policies , including the Stay in Mexico policy, but recently said his Administration would need “probably the next six months” to recreate a system that can process asylum seekers to avoid that a tide of migrants reaches the southern border.
Also on Friday, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, ruled against the Administration’s policy that granted the Governments state and local the right to refuse to resettle refugees.
The three-judge panel said that Trump’s executive order requiring state and local entities to give their consent before allowing refugees to be located in their areas would undermine the Refugee Act . That law established by Congress was designed to allow resettlement agencies to find the best place for a person to prosper while working with local and state officials.