On Tuesday, November 7, 2023, an attorney representing US President Joe Biden’s administration spoke before an appeals court, arguing that a judge erred in halting a regulation that would have placed additional limitations on those seeking asylum at the US-Mexico border.
The government appealed a decision made earlier this year that the rule contradicts federal immigration law, which specifies specifically that asylum should not be denied for illegal border crossing. The case was reviewed by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on behalf of immigrant advocacy groups, filed a challenge to the rule.
As a Democrat, Biden entered office in 2021 promising to undo many of the harsh policies of the outgoing Republican president, Donald Trump. However, as more and more people have been apprehended crossing the border illegally, Biden has implemented stringent border controls.
According to the legislation, most migrants are presumed to be ineligible to petition for asylum if they entered other countries without first seeking refuge there or if they entered the country illegally rather than via a port of entry.
In August, the 9th Circuit overturned the judge’s decision to block the regulation, allowing it to stay in place while the appeal was being processed.
The U.S. Department of Justice’s Brian Boynton stated on Tuesday that the regulation is legitimate since it has a number of exceptions to disprove the assumption that migrants are not eligible for asylum, as opposed to outright prohibiting it.
According to Boynton, 12% of immigrants who requested an exception to the law had been granted as of September.
However, ACLU attorney Spencer Amdur told the court that figure just serves to highlight the fact that the great majority of migrants are not even eligible to be evaluated for asylum due to the way they broke immigration law when they arrived in the country.
“Such a small exception can’t be what makes the difference to the rule’s legality,” Amdur stated.
Throughout the session, which lasted an hour, the judges made no indication of their opinions. However, two of them pointed out that federal immigration law seems to grant the government wide latitude to take into account any pertinent criteria when determining the final recipient of asylum protections.
Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke stated that it makes sense that the mode of entrance might play a role in deciding whether a migrant can ask for asylum in the first instance if it can be taken into account when making a final determination about it.
Ref: Reuters
