Asylum Rule Comeback?  

IRLI shows “channeling rule” never should have been blocked 

WASHINGTON—Yesterday the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in support of a Trump administration rule that makes aliens ineligible for asylum if they cross the southern border in contravention of a Presidential Proclamation sealing that border. 

A DC federal district judge earlier had enjoined the rule, citing federal law granting arriving aliens the right to apply for asylum regardless of whether they entered the country unlawfully or through a port of entry. IRLI demonstrates in its brief, however, that the same federal law allows the administration to restrict eligibility for asylum, and that the right to apply for asylum does not imply the right to receive asylum. IRLI also shows the multiple reasons why the plaintiffs in this case lack standing to challenge this response by the Trump administration to the emergency at the border. 

“The channeling rule has largely been superseded by other asylum rules, such as the Wait in Mexico rule, that are currently in effect,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “But it is still vital to support the point that federal law was designed to give the President flexibility in responding to fast-moving immigration emergencies such as the asylum surge. The district court’s reading, by dictating national policy regardless of the facts, makes the asylum statute improvident and imperils the country. We hope the appellate court sees this is never what Congress intended, and reverses.”  

The case is O.A. v. Trump,  No. 19-5272 (D.C. Cir.).