Biden’s rule restricting asylum on the southern border is to remain in effect temporarily after appeals court decision

Joe Biden’s rule that asylum can only be granted if an applicant can prove that he tried in another country and was rejected has been upheld by an appeals court.

The court held on Thursday arrange restrictive asylum the southern border to stand temporarily.

The decision is a big win for the Biden administration, who had argued that the rule was integral to her efforts to maintain order along the US-Mexico border.

The new rule makes it extremely difficult for people to get asylum unless they first seek protection in a country they pass through on their way to the US or apply online.

There is room for exceptions and does not apply to children traveling alone.

The decision of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals grants a temporary stay of an earlier lower court decision found the policy illegal and ordered the government to end its use by next Monday at the latest.

The government had quickly gone to the Court of Appeal to ask whether the rule should be allowed to continue in use for so long the bigger battles around it play legality.

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of the government’s request to stay the lower court’s ruling pending appeal.

They also said they would expedite the hearing for the appeal, with both parties expected to send their arguments to the court in mid-September, and a hearing to be held at an unspecified date.

The decision means a relatively short timeline to review the case.

Judges William Fletcher and Richard Paez, both of whom were appointed by Bill Clinton, ruled in favor of the stay but gave no reason for their decision.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who was appointed by Donald Trump, disagreed.

In his dissenting opinion, VanDyke seemed to agree with the rule’s legality in theory, but said it differed little from previous rules put forth by the Trump administration, which were struck down by the same appeals court when Trump in function was.

He suggested that the judges were moved to allow the postponement because they feared that if the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, that body would have done it instead.

“I wish I could join the majority in granting a stay. It’s the right result. But that outcome, as good as it may be, is not allowed by the outcome-oriented mess we’ve made of our immigration precedent,” VanDyke wrote.

The new asylum rule was introduced in May.

At that point, the US ended its use of a different policy called title 42, which had enabled the government to expel migrants quickly without making them seek asylum. Its stated goal was to protect Americans from the coronavirus.

The government was concerned about a wave of migrants coming to the US after Title 42, because the migrants might finally be able to seek asylum. The government said the new asylum rule is an important tool to control migration.

Rights groups sued, saying the new rule endangered migrants by leaving them stranded in northern Mexico while they waited to score an appointment on the CBP One app, which the government uses to give migrants the chance to come to the border and apply for asylum.

The groups argued that people should be allowed to apply for asylum no matter where or how they cross the border and that the government’s app is faulty.

They also argue that the new asylum rule is essentially a reboot of two previous rules put forth by Trump to limit asylum — the very point Judge VanDyke alluded to in his dissenting opinion.

The groups have also argued that the government overestimates the importance of the new rule in controlling migration.

They say that when the US ended its use of Title 42, they went back to so-called Title 8 processing of migrants.

That kind of processing has much stronger consequences for deported migrants, such as a five-year ban from re-entering the US

Those consequences – not the asylum rule – were more important in countering migration after May 11the groups argue.

“The government has no evidence that the rule itself is responsible for the decline in port-to-port crossings after Title 42 expires,” the groups wrote in court.

But the government has argued that the rule is a fundamental part of its immigration policy to encourage people to use legal avenues to get to the US and impose strong consequences on those who don’t.

The government stressed the “huge damage” that would come if it could no longer use the rule.

“The rule is of paramount importance to the orderly management of the nation’s immigration system on the southwestern border,” the government wrote.

The government also argued that it was better to keep the rule in place while the trial unfolds over the next few months to avoid a “policy whipsaw” where Homeland Security officials treat asylum seekers without the rule for a while and then to use again. should the government ultimately prevail on the merits of the case.