Trump administration enacts another obstacle to asylum cases

By Daniel Trotta

 

Migrants walk to a transport bus after turning themselves in to law enforcement to seek asylum following an illegal crossing of the Rio Grande near Penitas, Texas, U.S., July 28, 2019. REUTERS/Loren Elliott

 

(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration imposed another obstacle for asylum-seekers on Monday, finding that being persecuted on the basis of threats against a family member is usually not enough to be granted asylum in the United States.

 

Attorney General William Barr issued a ruling that will set the standard for all immigration judges, using the same power his predecessors Jeff Sessions and Matthew Whitaker used to try to narrow the field of people potentially eligible for asylum.

 

The Trump administration is actively seeking to reduce the number of asylum cases, saying the system is overwhelmed by fraudulent claims. The number of people apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border has surged underTrump, with many Central Americans asking for refuge in the United States even though the vast majority of their claims are ultimately denied in court.

 

Unlike the federal judiciary, U.S. immigration courts fall under Justice Department jurisdiction, and the attorney general can intervene in cases to set national legal precedent. Trump's attorneys general have been more active than previous administrations in this practice. (https://tmsnrt.rs/2XmGDDg)

 

As part of a wider efforts to clamp down on immigration, the Trump administration has taken a series of measures recently to restrict asylum claims, including by issuing a rule requiring asylum candidates first to seek safe haven in a third country. 

 

A federal judge in San Francisco blocked the new rule last week by issuing a preliminary injunction pending trial. The government on Monday filed a motion asking the judge to suspend the injunction.

 

In the family ties case, known as "Matter of L-E-A," Barr overruled a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals, finding that the board improperly ruled a Mexican was eligible for asylum protection because the threats against him came about only after a drug cartel first threatened his father.

 

Asylum law requires that claims be evaluated on a case-by-case basis if they can show their persecution was based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a "particular social group."

 

An immigration lawyer who represented L-E-A said immigration courts for decades have considered families to be a particular social group, "so suddenly reversing that trend is likely to affect thousands of cases," said Bradley Jenkins, a litigator for Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc.

 

But Barr's decision found that virtually every asylum-seeker is a member of a family and that, "There is no evidence that Congress intended the term 'particular social group' to cast so wide a net."

 

Decisions like the one Barr issued Monday can ultimately be appealed to federal appellate courts. In December, a U.S. judge struck down a

previous Trump administration decision aimed at denying asylum to victims of gang or domestic violence.

 

For a graphic on How Trump’s attorneys general are transforming U.S. immigration law, click https://tmsnrt.rs/2XmGDDg 

 

(Reporting by Daniel Trotta in New York; Editing by Mica Rosenberg, Alistair Bell and Dan Grebler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-07-30

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

Good. This whole thing has become a farce that has sucked hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that could have gone to actual American Taxpayers, used to bring down the deficit, and pay for the wall. 

About time!

Closing the loopholes. 

MAGA

As a general rule, asylum claims involve the family unit.   The family unit is variously considered to be the parents and minor children.   In some cases, it is expanded to include other members of a household.   Adult children or more distant relatives may not be included, but may have a related but independent claim for asylum.  

 

Keeping the family unit as intact as possible has been a fundamental provision in asylum and refugee claims world wide.   It is a part of international agreements.   

 

 

I would have hoped for better from Reuters. Obstacle? Surely this is making the US asylum procedure more "robust". Is there no part of the MSM that is not infested with liberal progressive lunatics? 

Supporters for change applaud the POTUS tenacity!

43 minutes ago, Scott said:

As a general rule, asylum claims involve the family unit.   The family unit is variously considered to be the parents and minor children.   In some cases, it is expanded to include other members of a household.   Adult children or more distant relatives may not be included, but may have a related but independent claim for asylum.  

 

Keeping the family unit as intact as possible has been a fundamental provision in asylum and refugee claims world wide.   It is a part of international agreements.   

 

 

Thankyou mr scott for your service.trump needs to process the claims  then let the courts decide not create more obstacles for people in need

3 hours ago, Scott said:

Keeping the family unit as intact as possible has been a fundamental provision in asylum and refugee claims world wide.   It is a part of international agreements. 

 

Then I’m sure the international community wouldn’t mind spending THEIR billions and billions to care for and process what are mostly ineligible economic ‘migrants’. 

8 hours ago, Scott said:

As a general rule, asylum claims involve the family unit.   The family unit is variously considered to be the parents and minor children.   In some cases, it is expanded to include other members of a household.   Adult children or more distant relatives may not be included, but may have a related but independent claim for asylum.  

 

Keeping the family unit as intact as possible has been a fundamental provision in asylum and refugee claims world wide.   It is a part of international agreements.   

 

 

Absolutely!!!

4 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

Then I’m sure the international community wouldn’t mind spending THEIR billions and billions to care for and process what are mostly ineligible economic ‘migrants’. 

Yeah, well "Thainesss" I'm pretty sure it would be far less expensive than the Billions upon Billions spent creating weapons that mostly KILL innocents all over the world just for governments to make more money for themselves.

 

8 hours ago, Scott said:

As a general rule, asylum claims involve the family unit.   The family unit is variously considered to be the parents and minor children.   In some cases, it is expanded to include other members of a household.   Adult children or more distant relatives may not be included, but may have a related but independent claim for asylum.  

 

Keeping the family unit as intact as possible has been a fundamental provision in asylum and refugee claims world wide.   It is a part of international agreements.   

 

 

The entire thing has become a complete farce.  Illegals use to be predominately single males looking for work.  Once they found out that arriving with children aided their being admitted, they came with children often not their own.  The children in many cases returned south of the border to be used with yet another group.  The word asylum is also B.S.  Less than 10% of those seeking asylum actually qualify for it.  However the word is "magic"  It means you can't be deported and you get to hang around and drop kids at USA taxpayer expense, get other welfare benefits while waiting for your "court date" that somehow you just forget to make it to.  If a person is truly in danger the standard should be to flee to the first country that provides safety.  Not travel through five or six countries until you reach the USA.  For those of you who don't know, the USA is now apprehending upwards of 150,000 people per month.  Mind you, that is the ones that are caught.  They now come from over 100 countries.  A group of over 300 from Angola and the Congo was just apprehended in one city in Texas.  

7 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

Then I’m sure the international community wouldn’t mind spending THEIR billions and billions to care for and process what are mostly ineligible economic ‘migrants’. 

Actually, dealing with a family is much easier and cost effective than dealing with each individual in a family.   By and large, the international community has a willingness to deal with families.  

 

I don't think the issue here is the cost, since the US gov't is spending nearly $800 per person per day for detention, even though private facilities which operate, do so for less than $100 per day (one in Arizona does it for $13 per day).

 

That said, I am sure if the government wishes for international help, they can ask the UNHCR for assistance and it will be forthcoming.  

if usa hospitals were not overburdened and overwhelmed enough taking care of the "entitled legal residents and citizens" . especially true for emergency departments where a high % without true emergencies simply abuse it as if it were their own private clinic knowing they cannot be refused. add illegals and just increases the chaos.

 

putting the financial burden aside, the burden on staff if relentless and counterproductive and dangerous for patients also.