Key Takeaways
- The Trump administration has launched a nationwide campaign to void asylum claims of thousands of immigrants with active cases in immigration court.
- The effort involves ICE attorneys asking immigration judges to toss out asylum claims without hearing them on the merits, arguing that asylum-seekers can be deported to third countries.
- Over 8,000 motions have been filed in immigration court to cancel asylum claims, citing deportation agreements with third countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, and Uganda.
- Immigration lawyers argue that the campaign is designed to eliminate the path to asylum in the U.S. and coerce asylum-seekers into withdrawing their claims.
- The Trump administration’s strategy is based on a section of immigration law that disqualifies migrants from asylum if they are eligible to request legal protection in another nation with a "safe third country" arrangement with the U.S.
Introduction to the Trump Administration’s Asylum Policy
The Trump administration has initiated a nationwide campaign to void the asylum claims of thousands of immigrants with active cases in immigration court. This effort involves Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys asking immigration judges to dismiss asylum claims without considering their merits. Instead, ICE argues that asylum-seekers can be deported to third countries that have agreed to accept deportees who are not their citizens. This tactic has been used in immigration courts across the U.S., including in Atlanta, New York, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Texas.
The Use of Pretermit Motions
The Trump administration’s new tactic involves ICE attorneys filing "pretermit" motions, which ask immigration judges to toss out asylum claims without hearing them on the merits. In these motions, ICE argues that asylum-seekers fearing persecution in their home countries can instead be deported to one of several nations the Trump administration has persuaded to accept deportees who are not their citizens. This approach has been used in over 8,000 cases, according to internal government data obtained by CBS News. The targeted asylum-seekers have pending cases in immigration courts and are being asked to prove that they should not be sent to a third country because of fears of being persecuted there.
Impact on Asylum-Seekers
The campaign has affected clients with strong asylum claims who fled persecution in countries like Iran, Nicaragua, and Russia. Immigration lawyers argue that the government’s campaign is designed to eliminate the path to asylum in the U.S. and coerce asylum-seekers into withdrawing their claims. By scaring them with the prospect of being deported to a country that is not their own, the administration is attempting to dismantle the asylum system. As Paúl Pirela, an immigration lawyer in Houston, stated, "They see the asylum system as a whole as a problem, because it impedes them from deporting people in a quick manner." Pirela’s clients, including a Nicaraguan asylum-seeker and political dissident, have been ordered deported to Honduras after the government filed a pretermit motion in their case.
Immigration Lawyers’ Response
Immigration attorneys are challenging the tactic in court, including the 2019 regulation that ICE attorneys have been citing in their motions. Blaine Bookey, legal director for San Francisco’s Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, stated, "I think that this is in line with this administration’s attempt to completely eviscerate the availability of asylum and other forms of protection in this country." Bookey’s organization is one of the groups litigating the case, arguing that the regulation is unlawful and that the Trump administration’s strategy is an attempt to cut off asylum cases at the knees.
The Role of the Board of Immigration Appeals
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has issued a ruling that lawyers believe will accelerate efforts by the government to use "safe third country" agreements to cancel asylum cases. The BIA directed immigration judges to decide the motions by ICE to send immigrants to third-party countries before reviewing their asylum applications. This ruling has placed the burden on asylum-seekers to prove that they should not be sent to a third country because of fears of being persecuted there. As a result, immigration judges are being forced to consider the government’s motions before hearing the asylum claims, making it more difficult for asylum-seekers to make their case.
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s campaign to void asylum claims is a significant development in the ongoing debate over immigration policy in the U.S. By using pretermit motions and citing deportation agreements with third countries, the administration is attempting to dismantle the asylum system and coerce asylum-seekers into withdrawing their claims. Immigration lawyers are challenging this tactic in court, arguing that it is unlawful and an attempt to cut off asylum cases at the knees. As the debate continues, it is essential to consider the impact of this policy on asylum-seekers and the future of the asylum system in the U.S.