SAN DIEGO, CA – People who fled persecution and torture in their home countries joined immigration rights groups Al Otro Rado and the Haiti Bridge Alliance, challenging the illegal closure of the Trump administration’s illegal asylum disposal at ports along the US-Mexico border.
Plaintiffs are litigated by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), the American Council on Immigration, Democracy Forward and the Center for Constitutional Rights. It is represented by Trump.
The Trump administration is taking dramatic steps to severely violate US law and block access to the asylum process. On January 20th, the president issued a declaration, making it virtually impossible for an individual to seek asylum at a port of entry along the US-Mexico border. In doing so, the government pulled out rugs from under those waiting for a schedule of bookings at ports of entry, imposing vague and troubling document requirements as an excuse for bar access to the asylum process.
The government also suddenly cancelled all pre-appointments scheduled through the government’s CBP One app, with around 30,000 asylum seekers relying on anything, not just in Mexico. One of the plaintiffs in the case, Maria Daw, had planned an appointment via CBP 1 in hopes of seeking asylum after suffering a long-standing retaliation campaign by the cartel that targeted testimony against police collaborators in Mexico. The appointment was cancelled on January 20th, forcing Maria and her husband to be in hiding.
“Trump’s asylum shutdown policy is a clear reminder that we have not learned anything from the Holocaust and that we have no regrets or memories of 1938. “Under this policy, at the entry ports across the US-Mexico border, we are St. Louis every day, and there is no way to quantify the number of deaths, but we cannot know who is responsible.
“The suspension of asylum policy is a humiliation against the fundamental values of the United States and a direct attack on basic human rights to seek protection,” said Gearlyn Joseph, executive director of the Haiti Bridge Alliance (HBA). “The Haitian Bridge Alliance is alongside asylum seekers who are legally denied the rightful opportunity to legally present themselves for inspections at ports of entry to the US-Mexico border, as permitted by both international human rights and US immigration law.
“The asylum closure policy puts the lives of those seeking security at the tropical borders at risk and uses our immigration law as fr,” said Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Centre for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS). “Under the closure policy, families, children and adults fleeing persecution have been sunk in Mexico where they are causing serious harm and legally dependent. Our plaintiffs include asylum seekers, who must be tempted, tortured, tortured and persecuted by having to approach Mutai for the Moore while waiting for the opportunity to request asylum at the port of entry. The asylum process at the US-Mexican border.”
“The ability to seek asylum at borders is an integral part of our immigration law and is justified,” said Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney for the U.S. Council of Immigration. “Asylum is an important lifeline for those fleeing violence, including clients who are turning anywhere in Mexico. The administration’s policy of ending exile access at ports of entry is blatantly illegal. Client success not only saves their lives, but also beats the rules of the law.”
“As President Trump tries to abandon asylum seekers, President Trump is trying to abandon his rush to escape from unlawful, annoying and dangerous situations. “The democratic forward is proud to work with these brave plaintiffs and our partners to hold the administration accountable and protect the rights of those seeking asylum.”
“In illegal deportation, abduction and production, the elimination of the asylum system at the US-Mexico border is ranked catastrophic,” says Angelo Gisado, senior staff lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “The United States has requested hopeless and poor immigrants to wait immeasurably long to meet any procedural hurdles and apply for asylum.
Our Asylum Law, first enacted as part of the Refugee Act of 1980, explicitly provides for the “.[a]new york [noncitizen] Someone physically present in the United States or arriving in the United States (regardless of the designated port of arrival…) [noncitizen’s] You may apply for status and asylum. ” Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act – the alleged basis for the President’s Declaration – does not allow the President to suspend his right to apply for asylum at ports of entry.
The complaint filed today calls for relief from the presidential declaration and the end of the closure of asylum at ports of entry along the US-Mexico border.
Read the full complaint here.
###
Media Contact:
Centre for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS): Brianna Krong, [email protected],415-581-8835
Al Otro Rad: Melissa Flores, [email protected]
American Immigration Council: [email protected]
Forwards of democracy: [email protected]
Constitutional Rights Center: [email protected]
