Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:24-cv-01702 (D.D.C., filed June 12, 2024)

Two immigrant rights groups filed suit against the Biden administration, challenging a June 4, 2024, Interim Final Rule and accompanying Implementation Guidance that categorically exclude an entire group of asylum seekers from access to that protection because of where they entered the country, directly contrary to Immigration and Nationality Act. Under the Rule, which incorporates a June 3, 2024, Presidential Proclamation, noncitizens arriving between ports of entry at the southern border are, with extremely limited exceptions, categorically ineligible for asylum whenever a rolling seven-day average of the number of daily “encounters” of inadmissible noncitizens exceeds a certain numerical threshold. The complaint argues that these executive actions will effectively shut off any access to asylum protections for the vast majority of people arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, no matter how strong their claims. The proclamation echoes the Trump administration’s previous asylum entry ban, which immigrants’ rights advocates successfully challenged.

The lawsuit alleges that the ban, which allows asylum access only for people who can secure a scarce appointment to present themselves at a port of entry or satisfy a very narrow exception, is flatly inconsistent with the asylum statute that Congress enacted, which permits migrants to apply for asylum whether or not they enter at a port of entry. In addition to barring asylum for most migrants, the new rules and procedures also create potentially insurmountable obstacles for seeking other types of protection by imposing new, unlawful regulations governing how arriving noncitizens are screened to determine whether they are eligible for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture and providing only four hours to consult with an attorney before those screenings.

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services filed the complaint on June 12, 2024, in the D.C. District Court. Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on July 12, 2024. Cross motions for summary judgment are now fully briefed. Separately, Texas filed a motion with the court to intervene as a defendant in the case.

Following the finalization of the Interim Final Rule on September 30, 2024, the government argued that Plaintiffs’ claims are now moot. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 1, 2024, as well as a supplemental brief for summary judgment on November 15, 2024.

On May 9, 2025, the district court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and similarly granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court vacated the limitation on asylum eligibility as contrary to law, the manifestation of fear requirement as arbitrary and capricious, and the Guidance providing asylum seekers only 4 hours to consult with an attorney before a CFI as arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the reasonable probability standard.   

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU Immigrant Rights Project ǀ ACLU Foundation of the District of Columbia ǀ Jenner & Block LLP ǀ National Immigrant Justice Center ǀ Texas Civil Rights Project ǀ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies

Contact: Lee Gelernt ǀ ACLU Immigrant Rights Project ǀ lgelernt@aclu.org
Keren Zwick ǀ National Immigrant Justice Center ǀ kzwick@immigrantjustice.org
Melissa Crow ǀ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies ǀ crowmelissa@uclawsf.edu

Press: