Court blocks rule denying Asylum to immigrants crossing a third country

Immigrants from all over the world arrive to the US with the intention of requesting Asylum, which is granted to people who are in danger in their native countries and who meet certain qualification requirements.

During 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump’s administration, granting a permit stating that if an immigrant goes through another country before arriving to the US, they must request asylum and help there first before they can make a petition in the country.

What actions were taken at that time?

Immigrants had to verify at the US border that they had not been granted asylum in other countries to be able to make the petition, otherwise it would be denied immediately.

Immigrant rights defenders appealed against this rule as they believe that countries in Central America do not have the same benefits the US can have, because they are third world countries.

They also stated that denying asylum to immigrants who fear for their lives is to violate international human rights and the values of the culture of the US that has always committed to help marginalized communities.

Why has the court denied this rule?

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked this rule on March 5, 2020 for several reasons:

1. In order to accept such policies, an agreement must be made with neighboring countries for them to admit immigrants at the request of Asylum as well. Trump’s administration tried to reach agreements, however, no neighboring country (including Mexico and Guatemala) accepted the petition since they do not have the necessary conditions to give asylum to immigrants.In fact, the US receives many asylum requests from these neighboring countries.
2. The court declared: “It (the rule) forces a person to seek asylum abroad even if she will be subject to harm there; even if the country’s asylum system is corrupt, inaccessible, or insufficiently protective; and even if the country has refused to sign the agreement required.” 
3. The court has defined this rule as “arbitrary and capricious” and declares that it goes against the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that is based on making reasonable decisions for all parties involved in a specific situation, in this case, the US and the immigrants.
4. The rule basically wants to deny asylum requests to anyone other than Mexican immigrants, which goes against the constitution law of human rights.

The court decided that immigrants can seek asylum in the US even if they have crossed through another country before.

What is the reaction to this decision?

Immigrant rights advocates have responded that the decision to prohibit the “third country transit rule” is very positive for the population that is looking for a better future through asylum petition.

Immigrants will have more opportunities to solve their cases. The waiting time for asylum is still long, however, it is expected that the conditions of immigrants improve because of this decision made by the court.

If you need help asking for asylum in the United States or if you have any questions about immigration, you can contact us for a FREE Consultation with one of our expert immigration attorneys.

Alternatively, simply call Motion Law today at: (202) 918-1799.