A federal appeals court gave the Biden administration the green light to continue enforcing its asylum restrictions at the southern border amid litigation lodged by left-leaning immigration advocacy groups that argue the policies put the safety of migrants in jeopardy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 to block a lower court decision that forced the Department of Homeland Security to pause its asylum policy, which is known as the “Lawful Pathways Rule.”
More commonly referred to as a “transit ban,” the Biden administration’s policy requires that migrants claiming asylum that are looking to gain entry to the United States must first prove they were denied asylum by another country.
The transit ban was implemented after the May expiration of Title 42, which allowed immigration authorities to turn unlawful migrants away at the southern border. Apprehensions of unlawful migrants fell more than 40% from May to June but surged again in July, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Litigation against the policy has been coming from a coalition of left-leaning immigration organizations led by the American Civil Liberties Union. The groups have been arguing that the policy is not only illegal but often impossible to comply with because migrants from Central America allegedly have little to no opportunity for asylum in their neighboring countries.
“The Biden administration’s asylum ban is illegal and dangerous,” claimed Anne Peterson, senior staff attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “The government’s own attorneys have admitted that under the ban, people with legitimate asylum claims can be deported to countries where they face deadly persecution. The courts have repeatedly struck down these policies as unlawful.”
“We urge the administration to stop defending the ban, accept the district court’s ruling, and immediately reinstate a fair and lawful asylum process for all people seeking refuge at our nation’s doorstep,” Peterson added.
The Ninth Circut decision blocked the ruling from U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, who last week declared the transit ban violates U.S. immigration laws that grant migrants an opportunity for asylum regardless of how they arrived, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.
The one dissenting vote in the Ninth Circut came from Judge Lawrence VanDyke, an appointee of former President Donald Trump. VanDyke argued the Biden administration’s transit ban was nearly identical to the one proposed under the Trump administration, which Judge Tigar and the Ninth Circut struck down.
“The Biden administration’s ‘Pathways Rule’ before us in this appeal is not meaningfully different from the prior administration’s rules that were backhanded by my two colleagues,” VanDyke wrote, according to WSJ. “This new rule looks like the Trump administration’s Port of Entry Rule and Transit Rule got together, had a baby, and then dolled it up in a stylish modern outfit, complete with a phone app.”
As previously reported by The Dallas Express, the Biden administration deployed the CBP One app, which helps migrants schedule lawful border crossing appointments. The app was intended to facilitate up to 40,000 border entries per month.
