In this September 26, 2019 file photo, asylum seekers, in Tijuana, Mexico, listen to names being called from a waiting list to claim asylum at a border crossing in San Diego. (AP Photo/Elliot Spagat, File)
By ELLIOT SPAGAT, Associated Press
SAN DIEGO (AP) — Dealing a significant blow to a signature Trump administration immigration policy, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that the government can no longer make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico while their cases wind through U.S. immigration courts.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco also decided to keep another major policy on hold, one that denies asylum to anyone who enters the U.S. illegally from Mexico.
The twin setbacks for the Trump administration may prove temporary if it appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has consistently sided with President Donald Trump on immigration and border security policies.
The “Remain in Mexico” policy, known officially as “Migrant Protection Protocols,” took effect in January 2019 in San Diego and gradually spread across the southern border. Nearly 60,000 people have been sent back to wait for hearings, and officials believe it is a big reason why illegal border crossings plummeted about 80% from a 13-year high in May.
Reaction to the decision was swift among immigration lawyers and advocates who have spent months fighting with the administration over a program they see as a humanitarian disaster, subjecting hundreds of migrants to violence, kidnapping and extortion in dangerous Mexican border cities. Hundreds more have been living in squalid encampments just across the border, as they wait for their next court date.
Advocates planned to have immigrants immediately cross the border and present the court decision to authorities Friday, with group Human Rights First hand-delivering a copy to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at a bridge connecting Laredo, Texas, and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. Lawyers were hoping to get their clients before U.S. immigration court judges.
The decision interrupted some court cases. Immigration Judge Philip Law in San Diego delayed a final hearing on a Honduran man’s asylum case to April 17 after a government attorney couldn’t answer his questions about the effect of ruling, which temporarily halts the policy during legal challenges.
The government attorney said she asked her supervisor how to address the ruling and that he didn’t know what to do either.
The Justice Department sharply criticized the ruling, saying the decision “not only ignores the constitutional authority of Congress and the administration for a policy in effect for over a year, but also extends relief beyond the parties before the court.”
Judge William Fletcher, writing the majority, sided with the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups who argued the policy violates international treaty obligations against sending people back to a country where they are likely to be persecuted or tortured on the grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, political beliefs or membership in a particular social group.
Fletcher agreed the government set the bar too high for asylum-seekers to persuade officers that they should be exempt from the policy and didn’t provide enough time for them to prepare for interviews or consult lawyers. The judges said the government also erred by requiring asylum-seekers to express fear of returning to Mexico to be considered for an exemption, instead of asking them unprompted.
Fletcher quoted at length asylum-seekers who reported being assaulted and victimized in Mexico, saying it was “enough—indeed, far more than enough” to undercut the government’s arguments.
Fletcher was joined by Judge Richard Paez, who were both appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton. Judge Ferdinand Fern´åndez, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, dissented.
“The court forcefully rejected the Trump administration’s assertion that it could strand asylum-seekers in Mexico and subject them to grave danger,” ACLU attorney Judy Rabinovitz said. “It’s time for the administration to follow the law and stop putting asylum-seekers in harm’s way.”
Trump, however, has won support from the U.S. Supreme Court on rules disqualifying more people from green cards if they use government benefits and a travel ban affecting several Muslim-majority countries.
The ruling’s impact will be at least partially blunted by other policies introduced in response to unprecedented surge of asylum-seeking families that peaked last year, many of them from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
In November, the administration began sending asylum-seekers from Honduras and El Salvador to Guatemala, denying them a chance to seek refuge in the U.S. and instead inviting them to apply in the strife-torn Central American nation. Similar agreements with Honduras and El Salvador are set to take effect soon.
Another policy leads Mexicans and Central Americans who fail an initial screening to be rapidly deported without leaving Border Patrol stations. The screening interview is designed to take place in one day and any appeals to an immigration judge within 10 days. Asylum-seekers are given up to 90 minutes to contact a lawyer.
Rapid deportations were introduced in October in El Paso, Texas, and extended across the border by February.
The other measure with far-reaching consequences denies asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S.-Mexico border without seeking protection there first. It took effect in September and is being challenged in a separate lawsuit.
Supporters of the “Remain in Mexico” policy note it has prevented asylum-seekers from being released in the United States with notices to appear in court, which they consider a major incentive for people to come.
Mexicans and unaccompanied children are exempt.
Asylum has been granted in less than 1% of the roughly 35,000 Remain in Mexico cases that have been decided. Only 5% are represented by attorneys, many of whom are reluctant to visit clients in Mexico.
