Appeals Court upholds Biden asylum restrictions policy

A US appeals court granted a temporary victory to the US government. President Joe Biden by allowing it to remain in force a rule that restricts asylum on the southern border.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of a lower court's decision that had ruled that the policy was illegal and had ordered its immediate cessation.

The appeals court ruled in favor of the government in a 2-1 vote, indicating it will expedite the hearing of the appeal. Both sides are expected to present their arguments in September and the hearing will be held on a date to be determined, suggesting a relatively quick review process.

The panel of judges' decision reveals divisions in their reasoning. The judges William Fletcher and Richard Paez supported the continuation of the rule, while the judge Lawrence VanDyke He disagreed.

VanDyke noted that, although he considers the rule legitimate in theory, he finds similarities with previous policies implemented by the government of Donald Trump which were also rejected by the court. The justices' dissent suggests their fear that the Supreme Court would make a different decision if the case were to reach their level.

The measure was defended by the government as essential to maintain order on the southern border of the United States. According to Los Angeles Times, the new rule establishes stricter requirements for people to receive asylum in that country.

Implemented in May, the Biden administration's policy requires asylum seekers in the United States to have previously done so in a third country, or to submit their request online. However, it provides for exceptions and does not apply to children traveling alone.

This resolution is a direct consequence of the United States' elimination of a previous policy known as "Title 42", which allowed the rapid expulsion of migrants without giving them the opportunity to request asylum, with the aim of mitigating the spread of the coronavirus.

The US government expressed concern about a possible increase in migrant arrivals once Title 42 was lifted, prompting the implementation of the new rule.

Rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argued that the new rule endangers migrants by leaving them stranded in northern Mexico while they wait for an appointment through the CBP One app.

Additionally, they maintain that people should be able to apply for asylum regardless of how they cross the border and question the effectiveness of government enforcement.

The federal government, for its part, defended the rule as an essential part of its immigration strategy to encourage the use of legal channels and punish those who do not do so. In that sense, he argued that this has been fundamental to reduce irregular migration.

Advocacy groups, however, argue that the decline is due more to the more severe consequences of processing under Title 8 than to the new asylum rule.

The Court of Appeals' decision creates a temporary pause in the resolution of the case. As arguments and legal perspectives intertwine in the courts, it remains to be seen how the fight over the asylum rule at the US southern border will evolve.