On Wednesday, immigration advocates filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s proclamation that effectively ended the ability to seek asylum at U.S. ports of entry.
The lawsuit was submitted in a federal court in San Diego by multiple organizations, including the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the American Immigration Council, Democracy Forward, and the Center for Constitutional Rights.
These groups represent non-profits such as Al Otro Lado and the Haitian Bridge Alliance.
Among the plaintiffs is a woman who fled violence after testifying against a Mexican cartel. Her lawyers claim that after a scheduled appointment through the CBP One app was canceled on January 20, she and her husband were forced to go into hiding.
The lawsuit seeks a court ruling to declare the proclamation unlawful and to reinstate the policy allowing asylum seekers access at ports of entry, including those whose appointments were canceled when President Donald Trump took office.
Unlike a previous lawsuit filed in February in Washington, D.C., that focused on individuals who had already reached U.S. soil and were seeking asylum after crossing between ports of entry, this new lawsuit centers on those still outside the U.S. wishing to seek asylum at designated ports.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to a request for comment regarding the lawsuit, and the Department of Homeland Security also declined to comment.
When President Trump assumed office, he issued a sweeping proclamation that significantly altered asylum policies at the border, essentially halting asylum requests.
The proclamation argued that the asylum screening process established by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act could be ineffective in the current border environment, claiming it led to unauthorized entries into the U.S.
Immigrant advocates argue that under this proclamation, noncitizens seeking asylum at ports of entry are subjected to demands for medical and criminal histories, requirements more suitable for visa applications than for those fleeing immediate danger.
According to the complaint filed by the advocates, “Nothing in the INA or any other source of law permits Defendants’ actions.”
Al Otro Lado remarked on social media regarding the abrupt cancellation of appointments through the CBP One app, stating that around 30,000 asylum seekers in Mexico are left vulnerable and desperate with no pathway forward.
Thousands of individuals who attempted to gain asylum through the CBP One app saw their scheduled appointments canceled as a result of Trump’s proclamation that labeled the border situation as an invasion on his first day in office.
The organization stated, “We will not remain silent while this administration blocks access to asylum, violating both U.S. and international law.”
They also expressed a commitment to fight against what they described as cruelty as policy, asserting that they would continue their efforts in the courts and stand with those who risk everything for safety until the illegal blockade is dismantled.
The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies echoed this sentiment, remarking in a press release that the Trump administration had implemented extreme measures to obstruct access to the asylum process, which they argue is a blatant violation of U.S. laws.
This lawsuit highlights ongoing tensions surrounding immigration policy and the rights of asylum seekers in the current landscape.
image source from：https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/trump-administration-sued-in-san-diego-court-over-asylum-restrictions/3846689/
