LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) Coalition, July 16, 2019
"The Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) Coalition is proud to be a plaintiff and co-counsel in a new lawsuit challenging President Trump’s rule barring asylum for individuals who enter or attempt to enter across the southern border, if they did not seek protection from a third country while en route to the United States. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of CAIR Coalition and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES).
"We are proud to unite with RAICES and Hogan Lovells to challenge injustice and help children and adults apply for asylum fairly and according to what our laws say not the way the Attorney General seeks to rewrite them. This new rule will harm not only the many asylum seekers we serve in the Washington Metropolitan area but impairs our ability as an organization to help them. Many of the countries that our clients pass through to get to the United States are as dangerous if not worse than their home countries. This rule ignores this reality." said Claudia Cubas, CAIR Coalition’s Litigation Director.
Complaint (click here)
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (click here)
Maria WoehrPublic Relations Manager +1 202 637 firstname.lastname@example.org
Hogan Lovells represents nonprofit organizations challenging new rule barring asylum eligibility for many migrants
Washington, D.C., 16 July 2019 – Hogan Lovells filed a pro bono lawsuit this evening seeking relief from a sweeping new federal rule that bars asylum eligibility for individuals and families entering the United States unless they have first sought protection in a third country through which they have travelled.
The rule “radically rewrites” the laws governing asylum eligibility, states the complaint brought on behalf of the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition (CAIR Coalition) and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), two nonprofit organizations that provide legal assistance to migrants fleeing persecution.
“The Rule would strip asylum eligibility from many of those who need it most: migrants fleeing horrific situations in their home countries, which are some of the most dangerous places in the world,” said Hogan Lovells Partner Neal Katyal. “Under U.S. law, people who enter or seek to enter the Unites States have the right to be considered for asylum, and this lawsuit seeks to protect and preserve this crucial right.”
The interim final rule, titled “Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications” (Rule), issued on July 16 by the U.S. Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice and other agencies, attempts to create a third-country exception to the presumption of asylum eligibility for those in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
“We brought this action because there is an urgent need to protect those who will be hurt the most by this drastic change in the asylum process,” said Claudia Cubas, Litigation Director of CAIR Coalition. “Migrants fleeing to the United States are often running from life-or-death situations, leaving behind all they have to make a dangerous journey.”
Under existing federal law, consistent with the United States’ international legal obligations, individuals fleeing persecution and violence are entitled to pursue legal protection in the United States. The INA creates exceptions where the United States has agreements with “safe” third countries (such as Canada) or where applicants are firmly resettled in a third country.
But the new Rule deems individuals who enter or attempt to enter the United States after transiting through another country “ineligible for asylum” unless they sought and were denied protection elsewhere. The effect is to create a significantly higher burden for individuals seeking asylum, and to bar the overwhelming majority of asylum-seekers from obtaining protection in this country.
“Regardless of where they began their journey, many of the individuals entering our southern border have legitimate claims for asylum in the United States,” said Jonathan Ryan, Executive Director of RAICES. “This Rule creates yet another barrier to the right to seek protection that is guaranteed under both federal and international law.”
The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that the attempt to deny asylum under the Rule violates the INA and the Constitution, as well as the Administrative Procedures Act because it was issued without the required notice and comment procedures. The plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop the Rule from being implemented.
The Hogan Lovells team representing the plaintiffs is led by Neal Katyal, T. Clark Weymouth, Craig Hoover, Justin Bernick, Mitchell Reich, Thomas Schmidt, Elizabeth Hagerty, and Kaitlin Welborn.