Biden’s rule restricting asylum on eastern southern border to temporarily stay in place after appeals court ruling

Joe Biden’s rule that asylum can only be granted when a person applying can show they were tried in another country and rejected has been upheld by an appeals court.

The court authorized on Thursday rule restricting asylum to the southern border to temporarily remain in place.

The decision is a major victory for the Biden administration, who had argued that the rule was integral to his efforts to maintain order along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The new rule makes it extremely difficult for people to obtain asylum unless they first seek protection in a country they are passing through on their way to the United States or do not make a online request.

It includes exceptions and does not apply to children traveling alone.

The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling grants a temporary stay of a lower court ruling that had found the policy illegal and ordered the government to end its use by next Monday.

The government had quickly gone to the appeals court to ask that the rule be allowed to remain in force for the major legal battles surrounding his legality applies.

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of the government’s request to suspend the lower court’s decision while the appeal progresses.

They also said they would expedite the hearing of the appeal, with both sides due to send their arguments to the court by mid-September and a hearing to be held on an unspecified date.

The decision means a relatively quick time to review the case.

Judges William Fletcher and Richard Paez, both appointed by Bill Clinton, ruled in favor of the suspension but gave no reasons for their decision.

Justice Lawrence VanDyke, who was nominated by Donald Trump, dissented.

In his dissent, VanDyke appeared to agree with the legality of the rule in theory, but said it was little different from previous rules proposed by the Trump administration that were rejected by the same appeals court when Trump was in power.

He suggested the judges were pressured into granting the stay because they feared that if the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, that body would have done so instead.

“I wish I could join the majority in granting a reprieve. This is the correct result. But this outcome, fair as it is, is not allowed by the results-driven mess we made of our immigration precedent,” VanDyke wrote.

The new asylum rule was put in place in May.

At the time, the United States was ending the use of a different policy called Title 42, which had allowed the government to quickly deport migrants without letting them seek asylum. The stated goal was to protect Americans from the coronavirus.

Migrants trying to enter the United States from Mexico approach the site where workers are assembling large buoys that will serve as a border barrier on July 11

Workers continue to deploy large buoys to use as a border barrier along the banks of the Rio Grande at Eagle Pass, Texas on July 12

The 1,000ft barrier is made up of large wired buoys designed to deter migrants from crossing

The administration was concerned about a surge of migrants coming to the United States after Title 42 because migrants could finally seek asylum. The government said the new asylum rule was an important tool to control migration.

Rights groups have filed a lawsuit, saying the new rule puts migrants at risk by leaving them in northern Mexico while they wait to book an appointment on the CBP One app, which the government uses to give migrants the opportunity to come to the border and seek asylum.

The groups have argued that people are allowed to seek asylum regardless of where or how they cross the border and that government enforcement is flawed.

They also argue that the new asylum rule is essentially a reboot of two previous rules proposed by Trump that sought to limit asylum — the same point Justice VanDyke alluded to in his dissent.

The groups have also argued that the government is overestimating the importance of the new rule in controlling migration.

They say that when the United States ended the use of Title 42, it reverted to what is called Title 8 migrant processing.

This type of treatment has much stronger repercussions for migrants who are deported, such as a five-year ban on re-entering the United States.

These consequences – and not the asylum rule – were more important in stem migration after May 11the groups argue.

“The government has no evidence that the rule itself is responsible for the decrease in crossings between ports after the expiration of Title 42,” the groups wrote in submissions.

But the government has argued that the rule is a fundamental part of its immigration policy of encouraging people to use legal channels to come to the United States and imposing heavy consequences on those who do not.

The government pointed to the ‘enormous damage’ that would occur if it could no longer use the rule.

“The rule is of paramount importance to the orderly management of the nation’s immigration system on the southwestern border,” the government wrote.

The government has also argued that it is best to keep the rule in place while the trial unfolds in the coming months to avoid a ‘political whiplash’ by which Homeland Security personnel treat asylum seekers without the rule for a while to come back to use it again. whether the government should ultimately prevail on the merits of the case.