Panel Of Distinguished Law Professors Say Trump Is Wildly Wrong — East Bay III, In The Ninth Circuit…

Overnight, in the Ninth Circuit, on an appeal Trump filed [from his loss at the trial level], related to his purported evisceration to the statutorily defined “firm resettlement” hurdle [found at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(A)], as a bar to US asylum claims — yet another well-known panel of immigration law experts have said that Team Trump apparently cannot read [or cannot comprehend] plain English, well-settled, black letter USC law. [My prior backgrounder, here.]

Here is the cogent 34 page amicus brief as a PDF file, an a bit:

. . . .Firm resettlement under the INA has a history that extends back over seventy years, to the global refugee crisis at the end of World War II. Early in the efforts to cope with that crisis, the United States, working with the United Nations, determined that firm resettlement meant far more than mere physical presence in or transit through a country. Instead, using firm resettlement as a basis for disqualifying a person from refugee protection required a showing that the refugee had accrued a robust stake in a country by incurring “rights and obligations” equivalent to those enjoyed by the country’s own nationals. See Rosenberg v. Yee Chien Woo, 402 U.S. 49, 56 n.5 (1971). Neither the United States nor its many international partners in the post–World War II refugee relief effort would have considered the refugee’s mere presence in or movement through a country as meeting that test.

Similarly, the bar for safe third country agreements is high and requires an express agreement with a foreign state, along with findings by the United States that an asylum seeker will not face persecution in that state and that the state has built a fair system of asylum adjudication. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(A). The United States views these conditions as demanding; indeed, it has concluded such an agreement with only one country — Canada — whose commitment to rule of law institutions parallels our own. The U.S.-Canada agreement includes robust safeguards and emerged from extensive consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

[Trump’s purported] new rule includes none of these constraints. . . .

Onward — again, as ever — Trump will lose here. The esteemed professors of US immigration law are correct.


There are no comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: