Judges build on the power of the Trump administration in asylum cases

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court on Thursday strengthened its ability to allow individuals seeking asylum to the Trump administration without registering a case before a federal judge.

The High Court’s 7-2 ruling applies to those who grew up at or near the border and who failed their initial asylum test, who are entitled to deportation or eviction quickly.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the High Court opinion, which overturned the lower court's ruling that asylum seekers should be granted access to federal courts.

Alito wrote that "the system worked properly" to end claims without merit and to deport foreigners making such claims from the country.

About three-quarters of those who have taken refuge in the past five years have passed their initial screening and are eligible for a full review, he said.

Judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with the outcome of the case, but did not attend Alito's opinion.

In disagreement, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "Today's verdict betrays the ability of the judiciary to perform its constitutional duty to protect individual liberty." She was accompanied by Justice Elena Kagan.

"It's difficult to question the actions of immigration officials on the US border," said Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued in the Supreme Court. "This decision affects thousands of people at the border. They cannot review the wrong denial of asylum," Gellert said.

In practice, the effect may be limited. Even after a federal appeals court ruled in San Francisco that judges rejected Thursday, only 30 refugees have been dismissed, seeking admission to the courts, Gellernut told jurors during the arguments in February.

But immigration expert, Cornell University law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr said the decision supports broader administrative action on asylum.

Justice Alito, in his majority opinion, used broad language, which justifies congressional efforts to limit the due process for the arrival of immigrants. While there is no need for a definitive grip on the case, the Trump administration will use such language to justify its broader efforts to ban refugees, ”said Yale-Lohar.

The administration has turned the asylum system into a focus of its immigration agenda, claiming it has been abused and engulfed by ineligible claims. The change is awaiting refugees in Mexico, but their cases refuse to be granted asylum on the Mexican border by the U.S. immigration court, without first securing passage from another country, and flying to Guatemala in search of opportunity: Hondurans and El Salvador. Refuge there instead of America

On Monday, the Trump administration published a wide range of new procedural and rigid rules that make it more difficult to seek asylum, triggering a 30-day period for public comment before they take effect.

According to United States data, in 2017 the United States became the world’s top destination for refugees, many of them fleeing local violence in Mexican and Central American families.

The judiciary ruled in the Vijayakumar Turisigam case that he was a member of the Sri Lankan Tamil minority who had survived the violence but failed to convince the immigration authorities that he had suffered losses upon his return to Sri Lanka. The man was arrested shortly after crossing the U.S. border from Mexico.

Those who failed in the preliminary interviews were fast-tracked in removal proceedings that prohibited them from seeking further assistance from federal courts.

Since 2004, immigration officials have been targeting speedy deported immigrants who take over 100 miles to the U.S. border and within 14 days of entering the country. The Trump administration seeks to extend that power so that people can be detained anywhere in the US and deported for up to two years.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a trial judge's decision blocking the expanded policy. Other legal issues in the case have not been resolved.

Post a Comment