A US appeals court has awarded a temporary victory to the government of the President Joe Biden by allowing it to remain in force a rule that restricts asylum at the southern border.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of a lower court decision that had ruled that the policy was illegal and had ordered its immediate cessation.
The appeals court ruled in favor of the government in a 2-1 vote, indicating that it will expedite the appeal hearing. Both sides are expected to present their arguments in September and the hearing is expected to take place at a date to be determined, suggesting a relatively quick review process.
The judging panel’s decision reveals divisions in their reasoning. The judges william fletcher and Richard Paez supported the continuation of the rule, while the judge Lawrence Van Dyke disagreed.
VanDyke noted that while he considers the rule legitimate in theory, he finds similarities to previous policies implemented by the government of donald trump which were also rejected by the court. The judges’ dissent suggests their fear that the Supreme Court would make a different decision if the case were to reach their level.
The measure was defended by the government as essential to maintaining order on the southern border of the United States. According to Los Angeles Timesthe new norm establishes stricter requirements for people to receive asylum in that country.
Implemented in May, the Biden administration’s policy requires asylum seekers in the United States to have previously done so in a third country, or to submit their petition online. However, it provides for exceptions and does not apply to children traveling alone.
This resolution is a direct consequence of the elimination by the United States of a previous policy known as “Title 42”, which allowed the rapid expulsion of migrants without giving them the opportunity to request asylum, with the aim of mitigating the spread of the coronavirus.
The US government expressed concern about a possible increase in migrant arrivals once Title 42 was lifted, prompting the implementation of the new rule.
Rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argued that the new rule endangers migrants by stranding them in northern Mexico while they wait for an appointment through the CBP One app.
Furthermore, they argue that people should be able to apply for asylum regardless of how they cross the border and question the effectiveness of government enforcement.
The federal government, for its part, defended the law as an essential part of its migration strategy to encourage the use of legal channels and punish those who do not. In this sense, he argued that this has been essential to reduce irregular migration.
Advocacy groups, however, argue that the decline is due more to the harsher consequences of Title 8 prosecution than the new asylum rule.
The decision of the Court of Appeals generates a temporary pause in the resolution of the case. As arguments and legal perspectives become intertwined in the courts, it remains to be seen how the fight for the asylum rule at the US southern border will evolve.
