No Judicial Authority in Challenge to Asylum Policies, Feds Tell Judge

No Judicial Authority in Challenge to Asylum Policies, Feds Tell Judge  Courthouse News

PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) — The Trump administration told a federal judge Tuesday that there is no legally permissible way for immigrant advocates to challenge what they say is a biased system that, in some jurisdictions, results in fewer than 2% of asylum seekers being allowed to remain in the United States.

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and other groups including the Southern Poverty Law Center sued the government this past December, claiming the Trump administration’s immigration policies imposed arbitrary timelines that forced judges — all resulting in outcomes in line with the administration’s anti-immigrant animus. The groups said the policies prevent them from providing adequate legal representation to the immigrants they serve and violate laws imposed by Congress.

“In the immigration courts, the tradition of judicial independence has been turned upside down,” the lawsuit states. “Systemic dysfunction and anti-immigrant animus create a Kafkaesque reality where prosecution merges with judging and the ultimate goal is deportation rather than fair adjudication.”

In a hearing Tuesday on the government’s motion to dismiss, Trump administration attorneys said no court can exercise oversight over such policies — even if they are alleged to be illegal. Instead, Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Ward said immigration cases must be appealed on an individual basis.

That was a route that the advocacy groups called wholly inadequate, as it would not result in the “systemic review” they seek.

U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut had questions for Ward. 

“If any administration, now or in the future, any administration adopts policies that violate the statutes, is that reviewable?” Judge Immergut asked. “Assuming the plaintiffs have established that there is some harm to their organization’s resources, because the administration has implemented policies that violate the intention of Congress — let’s just assume that’s true — what would be the recourse? Somehow there’s no review to those claims?”