Q&A with Vance Winningham
Court temporarily blocks denying asylum to Central American caravan.
COURT TEMPORARILY BLOCKS DENYING ASYLUM TO CENTRAL AMERICAN CARAVAN
Q: What was the administration’s most recent strategy aimed at the
“caravan” from Central America?
A: On Nov. 9, President Donald
Trump issued an executive proclamation and rule allowing only people who cross at legal checkpoints on the southern border to request asylum. Those entering elsewhere would only be able to seek different forms of protection that are harder to win and offer fewer benefits.
Q: What was a U.S. District Court’s initial reaction to this form of ban on those seeking asylum in the U. S.?
A: In a ruling issued Nov. 19, the
U.S. District Court in San Francisco temporarily blocked the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who cross the southern border into the United States without inspection, saying the policy likely violated federal law on asylum eligibility. The court order remains in effect until Dec. 19 when the court will consider making the order permanent.
Q: What justification did the court give for stopping this ban? A: The judge indicated the president could not change asylum law by executive fiat. “Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden.” The judge observed that border apprehensions are near historic lows and that, regardless, federal law says all people on or arriving to U.S. soil can apply for asylum, no matter their manner of arrival or entry. The judge further indicated that this new administration rule would force individuals “to choose between violence at the border, violence at home, or giving up a pathway to refugee status.”
Q: What is the most drastic action the Trump administration has taken to combat the “caravans,” besides sending federal troops to the southern border?
A: Last March former Attorney General Jeff Sessions intervened in an administrative appellate level immigration court case. It involved a woman who sought asylum after enduring more than a decade of beatings, death threats, rape and stalking by her ex-husband in El Salvador. Retired immigration judges, multiple civil society organizations, and even lawyers within Trump’s Department of Homeland Security filed briefs informing Sessions that decades of case law have affirmed domestic violence victims’ eligibility for asylum. Despite this, Sessions issued a decision and one-page statement addressing the question of whether “a victim of private criminal activity” (such as spousal abuse) can be considered part of a “particular social group” necessary for purposes of granting asylum. He wrote, “Generally claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence ... will not qualify for asylum.” Thus Sessions on an executive administrative level has basically delegitimized the two most common reasons Central American migrants seek legal asylum. His decision is currently being appealed in the federal court system. However, pending a final court decision, it’s causing asylum officers and immigration judges to deny a significantly greater proportion of Central Americans’ asylum cases.