A group of immigrant rights organizations are suing the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies over asylum rules they say go against U.S. immigration law.
The suit includes the Arizona-based Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, which provides pro bono legal services to asylum seekers, and focuses on a Biden-era rule enacted just days before President Donald Trump took office, on Jan. 17.
The new rule requires asylum officers to determine whether asylum seekers should be subject to one of a handful of mandatory bars to asylum — things like providing material support for terrorism.
Laura St. John, legal director of the Florence Project, says these bars have long been in place and are usually determined through a complex legal process in court.
“What this rule did was it shifted where and when — and who — made determinations about who was potentially ineligible for asylum,” she said. “The way that this used to be done is that somebody would get to see an immigration judge, and then the judge at a hearing where there’s the full opportunity to present evidence and go through the whole complex analysis, would make the determination about whether the bar applied or not.”
Under the new rule, those determinations are made during fear screenings, which often happen shortly after someone arrives at the border.
In addition to legal service providers, an Afghan national who fled threats from the Taliban is also named as a plaintiff. He received a fear screening at the Eloy Detention Center in February, according to the suit, but was turned down based on the finding that he may be subject to one of the mandatory bars on asylum.
“The mandatory bars are factually and legally complex, and rebutting those bars typically requires both the presentation of documentary evidence and nuanced legal arguments,” the suit reads. “Neither is possible in the context of screening interviews, which are often rushed and conducted while a noncitizen is being held in immigration detention without access to counsel or the outside world.”
Asylum has come to a near complete halt since Trump took office because of a series of executive orders — including that allows US officials to “repel, repatriate or remove” migrants and bar them from accessing certain immigration benefits, like asylum.
Those actions are currently the subject of litigation. St. John says attorneys want to file suit now so that if asylum resumes, people aren’t unfairly barred.
“Essentially every person who comes to the border and seeks asylum is potentially subject to expedited removal," she said. "And the credible fear screening — which is where these mandatory bars are now being applied — is sort of the mechanism through which somebody is removed from that expedited removal and gets the opportunity to present their full case to an immigration judge."
Lawsuits challenging changes to expedited removal procedures also must be filed within 60 days of a new rule being enacted.
