Joe Biden’s rule that asylum can only be granted if an applicant can show they have tried in another country and been refused has been upheld by an appeals court.
The court approved this on Thursday Regulation restricting asylum The southern border is to remain in place temporarily.
The decision is a great victory for the Biden government, which had argued that the rule was an essential part of its effort to maintain order along the US-Mexico border.
The new rule makes it extremely difficult for people to obtain asylum unless they first seek protection in a country they transit through en route to the US or apply online.
It provides for exceptions and does not apply to children traveling alone.
People line up at a border wall as they wait to apply for asylum after crossing the border from Mexico near Yuma, Arizona on July 11
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision grants a temporary stay from a lower court decision found the policy illegal and ordered the government to stop using it by next Monday.
The government had quickly approached the Court of Appeal, requesting that the rule remain in effect the larger court battles surrounding his Legality plays out.
The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of the government’s motion to stay the lower court’s decision pending appeal.
They also said they would expedite the appeal hearing, expecting both sides to present their arguments to the court by mid-September and a hearing to be held at an unspecified date.
The decision means a relatively short timeframe for reviewing the case.
Justices William Fletcher and Richard Paez, both appointed by Bill Clinton, favored the stay but gave no reason for their decision.
Donald Trump-appointed Justice Lawrence VanDyke disagreed.
In his dissent, VanDyke appeared to theoretically agree with the rule’s legality, but said it differed little from previous Trump administration rules, which were rejected by the same Court of Appeals during Trump’s tenure.
He indicated that the judges granted the stay because they feared that if the case had made it to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would have made the decision.
“I wish I could join the majority and grant a reprieve.” It is the right result. “But that outcome, correct as it is, is disallowed by the outcome-oriented mess we’ve made with our immigration precedent,” VanDyke wrote.
The new asylum regulations came into force in May.
At that point, the US stopped using a different policy called Title 42, This had allowed the government to expel migrants quickly without them being able to apply for asylum. The stated purpose was to protect Americans from the coronavirus.
The government was concerned about a surge in migrants pouring into the US post-Title 42 as migrants would finally be able to apply for asylum. The government said the new asylum regime is an important tool to control migration.
Human rights groups filed a lawsuit, saying the new rule puts migrants at risk by leaving them in northern Mexico while waiting to make an appointment through the CBP One app, which the government uses to give migrants the opportunity to to get to the border and apply for asylum.
The groups argued that people are allowed to apply for asylum regardless of where or how they cross the border and that the government app is buggy.
They also argue that the new asylum rule is essentially a rehash of two of Trump’s previous rules aimed at restricting asylum — the same point Judge VanDyke alluded to in his dissent.
The groups also argued that the government overestimated the importance of the new regime for controlling migration.
They say that when the US stopped using Title 42, they reverted to so-called Title 8 processing of migrants.
This type of processing has much stronger implications for deported migrants, such as a five-year ban on re-entering the United States
These consequences – not the asylum regulations – were more important Post-May 11 Migration Containmentargue the groups.
“The government has no evidence that the rule itself is responsible for the decline in crossings between ports after Title 42 expires,” the groups wrote in court filings.
However, the government has argued that the rule is an integral part of its immigration policy, which encourages people to use legal routes to enter the US and imposes severe consequences on those who don’t.
The government stressed the “enormous damage” that would result if it could no longer apply the rule.
“The rule is of paramount importance to the proper administration of the nation’s immigration system on the south-west border,” the government wrote.
The administration also argued that it would be better to keep the rule in place while the lawsuit is heard in the coming months, to prevent a “political slugfest” in which Homeland Security officials process asylum seekers without the rule for a period of time and then remove them to reapply, the government should ultimately prevail on the matter.