A federal judge bans Trump from restricting the right to asylum anywhere in the country

A federal judge in California has once again blocked a rule approved by the Government of Donald Trump to restrict the right to asylum.

What is the new rule? The Government announced on July 15 one of its toughest immigration measures: any immigrant who applies for asylum in the United States must request it before in at least one of the countries that he crosses during his journey to the border.

That means, for example, that a Central American family fleeing violence must apply for asylum in Mexico (or, in the case of Hondurans and Salvadorans, in Guatemala) before they can do so in the United States.

These families make up the majority of asylum seekers who have reached the southern border of the United States in recent months. But the new rule also affects Mexican, African, Cuban or Haitian migrants.

What did the judge say? The new rule was immediately answered before the courts by civil rights associations, and on July 24 a federal judge issued a precautionary prohibition so that the Government could not apply it at least until it was decided whether it was legal or not (a process that can take years)

Jon Tigar, federal judge in California, ruled that Congress has already regulated how the legal asylum system works: it can only be denied if the applicant can request it while on the road in a country declared safe.

But the United States has only signed an international agreement officially declaring another country as safe: Canada. Mexico has refused to do so far, so it cannot be legally considered as such.

What did the Court of Appeals say? The Government appealed the decision before the Court of Appeals of the Ninth District, which on August 13 published its verdict: it gave the judge the reason, but with an important qualification.

The prohibition to apply this new rule will only be in force in the territory under the jurisdiction of this court: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawai’i, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and the territories of Guam and Mariana.
Thus, the new rule may be applied in the rest of the country, unless prohibited by another court, since the claimant associations have not proved that the prohibition should extend to the entire territory, and the Supreme Court, states the Court of Appeals, It has been against general prohibitions.

What has the judge done now? Jon Tigar has returned to block this Monday the rule of the Government with national character, so that it cannot be applied in any state. He has done so by considering that the civil rights organizations that filed the lawsuit have now proven that it is necessary.

These organizations have indicated that they attend asylum seekers in other states that are not part of the Ninth District, and would suffer “damages” unless the rule was similarly prohibited throughout the national territory.

Now the Government can resort again to the Court of Appeals of the Ninth District, which could change the judge's decision again or reaffirm it completely, before which there would only be an appeal to the Supreme Court (which may take years).