Nolan writes:
. . . .
Sessions is trying to eliminate the need for asylum hearings on applications that are based on improper persecution claims. These meritless cases are contributing to an immigration court backlog crisis. If he is prevented from doing this by issuing precedent decisions to provide guidance on how asylum cases are supposed to be handled, the administration will resort to more extreme measures.
The United States does not have to grant any asylum applications. Asylum is discretionary, and the Supreme Court has held that the president can suspend the entry of aliens into the United States when he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
The court declined to decide whether “some form of inquiry into the persuasiveness of a president’s finding is appropriate.” It seems unlikely, however, that the court would reject a president’s finding that discretionary asylum grants should be suspended until the immigration court backlog crisis is brought under control because allowing the backlog to continue is detrimental to the interests of the United States.
This would not leave asylum seekers without a way to avoid persecution. Withholding of removal is available too and it is mandatory when eligibility has been established. The main difference in eligibility requirements is that asylum just requires a well-founded fear of persecution, and withholding requires the applicant to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted.
But withholding does not entitle aliens to remain in the United States. It just prevents them from being deported to a country where they will be persecuted
. . . .
**********************************************
Read Nolan’s complete article at the link.
- Unlike Nolan, I believe that the ACLU has properly stated a case for jurisdiction under INA 242(e)(3)(A)(ii). Sessions’s decision in Matter of A-B- has the force and effect of a regulation. Moreover, the DHS implementing instructions give it the status of a “written policy” concerning credible fear and expedited removal. Here’s the complaint in Grace v. Sessions: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/grace-v-sessions-complaint
- Contrary to what Nolan suggests in his article, a petition for review of A-B- is not an adequate remedy for these plaintiffs. First, Matter of A-B-, to my knowledge, is still on remand to the Immigration Judge. Therefore, there is no “final order” for judicial review purposes.
- Second, Matter of A-B- has never been subject to judicial review in any court. Yet, the plaintiffs in Grace face a likelihood of return to persecution without ever having a chance to challenge A-B- through a petition for review. That’s the result of Sessions’s improperly cutting off access to the Due Process hearing system before an Immigration Judge. If Matter of A-B- is eventually overruled by one or more Courts of Appeals, the respondents will have already been improperly deported to persecution or death.
- Nolan also uses some of the questionable EOIR statistics that I commented on separately in my preceding post: https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2W2
- The idea that Trump could essentially repeal the US asylum system on the basis of bogus national security concerns seems preposterous on its face. Yet, in the perverted “Age of Trump,” and given the Supremes’ majority’s spineless performance in Trump v. Hawaii, I suppose anything is posssible.
PWS
08-16-18