A two-judge majority found that the Immigration and Nationality Act grants discretion to keep migrants seeking to enter the United States in Mexico pending a hearing.
Latest in immigration
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration can continue to enforce its "Remain in Mexico" policy for some Central American migrants while litigation over the policy proceeds, staying the lower court's injunction. The ruling is available here and below.
The president justified new restrictions on asylum as a response to the recent marked uptick in arrivals at the southern border. But each measure is a blunt instrument that could harm bona fide asylum claimants.
Attorney General Bill Barr ruled on April 17 that asylum seekers who present at the border and establish a "credible fear of prosecution or torture" are ineligible for release on bond once they are transferred from expedited removal proceedings to full deportation proceedings. The Department of Homeland Security may still choose to release asylum seekers, but cannot be compelled by immigration judges to do so.
U.S. border enforcement efforts begin much farther south than the Rio Grande.
The New York Times reports that Adham Amin Hassoun has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his current detention in an immigration facility in Buffalo, New York. Hassoun, a Palestinian who later moved to Florida, was detained in 2002 for overstaying his visa and convicted on material support charges in 2007. After serving his criminal sentence, he was then held in immigration detention.
Inquiring minds want to know.
The program represents a shift toward moment-by-moment monitoring of immigrant activities during the lifecycle of their interactions with the United States.
Judge John Tigar’s decision echoes his previous emphasis, and that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on the plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
While the Supreme Court rejected statutory arguments against Trump’s travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii, the statutory case against the new asylum proclamation is more pointed.