Federal courts in DC, California split on cutting asylum requests
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in San Francisco on Wednesday expressed deep skepticism of a new Trump administration policy that disqualifies migrants from applying for asylum if they traveled through another country before reaching the United States. The policy aims to curtail Central American migration across the southern border by requiring asylum-seekers to apply elsewhere first.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, who halted another version of the Trump administration’s asylum ban l ast year, questioned whether countries such as Mexico and Guatemala have adequate conditions needed to absorb thousands of migrants heading toward the United States. Tigar earlier ruled that federal law allows anyone who sets foot on U.S. soil to apply for asylum.
The hourlong hearing Wednesday came after U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly in Washington declined to halt the policy, setting up a potential race to federal appellate courts over one of the Trump administration’s key migration initiatives.
President Donald Trump immediately hailed the District decision as a victory, telling reporters outside the White House that the decision “helps us very much at the border.”
“So the asylum is a very big ruling. That was a tremendous ruling today,” Trump said. “We appreciate it. We respect the courts very much.”
Plaintiffs in both cases — nonprofit organizations serving immigrants — filed the legal challenges hours after the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security created a rule July 16 barring most migrants from filing asylum claims if they had traveled through Mexico or another country where they could have sought refuge.
Federal officials said the goal is to curb the crush of migrant families at the southern border and to deter migrants from traveling with children and filing meritless asylum claims designed to win quick release in the United States.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Lee Gelernt said during the hearing Wednesday in San Francisco that Trump’s new policy would virtually “eliminate asylum at the southern border.”
He pointed to “mountainous” evidence from human rights groups detailing the risks to migrants in Mexico and Guatemala and the inadequacies of the asylum systems in those countries.
“We don’t see how anybody could read this record and conclude . . . that these are safe countries,” he said.
Justice Department lawyer Scott Stewart said Wednesday in San Francisco that the asylum policy is part of an array of initiatives that are starting to slow the influx of migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border, and are “important in negotiations” with Mexico and other countries to “share the burdens” of mass migration.
Kelly, a Trump appointee, ruled that the nonprofit groups serving immigrants had failed to show how many of their clients would be affected by the change, saying that “there is just nothing in the record to suggest how many individuals, if any, fall into that category.”
But Tigar said each judge must render his own decision: “We have the appellate courts to sort this out for us.”