Ninth Circuit Court Upholds Rights of Asylum Seekers, Rules Against Harmful “Metering” Policy
Today, the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed a lower court decision that held unlawful the government’s systematic turnbacks – or “metering” – of people seeking asylum at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. Read ahead about the implications of this decision.
In a landmark decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has largely upheld a 2021 ruling declaring that the U.S. government’s policy of turning back asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border is unlawful. For years, migrants – including vulnerable families and children – have been blocked from entering the U.S. to seek safety through practices like “metering,” intimidation, and other harmful tactics, leaving many stranded in dangerous conditions in Mexico.
The ruling confirms that border agents are legally required to allow people to seek asylum when they arrive at U.S. ports of entry. Since 2016, however, officials have prevented many from accessing this critical right, forcing migrants into life-threatening situations where they are often exposed to violence and exploitation. This court decision is a crucial affirmation that the right to seek asylum is a human right that the U.S. must uphold.
Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, Director of the Border Rights Project at Al Otro Lado, underscored the tragic human impact of this policy: “Too many good people have died as a result of the metering policy, too many were raped, sold, tortured, or disappeared, never to be heard from again, because CBP turned them away.” The court’s decision represents a powerful acknowledgment of the harm inflicted on asylum seekers by these policies.
A Victory Years in the Making
The legal journey leading to this ruling began in 2017, when Al Otro Lado, a nonprofit organization assisting migrants on both sides of the border, and individual asylum seekers brought a lawsuit challenging the turnback policy. Supported by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the American Immigration Council, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Democracy Forward, and several law firms, the plaintiffs argued that denying asylum seekers the right to approach the U.S. border was unlawful.
In 2021, a district court agreed, ruling that border officers must process asylum claims at U.S. ports of entry. The government, however, chose to appeal, leading to today’s powerful reaffirmation by the Ninth Circuit.
A Shifting Landscape of Asylum Access
While the ruling is a step forward, advocates note that barriers to asylum remain. Under current regulations, the government has implemented a system requiring many asylum seekers to schedule appointments via the flawed CBP One smartphone app. This new approach, in effect, continues metering under another name. Only those who secure appointments have been permitted to seek asylum, leaving others to navigate dangerous waiting periods in Mexico.
Advocates are challenging these additional obstacles in court, arguing that they violate the legal right to seek asylum and impose further risks on vulnerable people. In June 2024, the administration introduced further restrictions, tightening exceptions and adding new barriers for those seeking refuge at the U.S. border.
A Call for Change
“Today’s ruling affirms what we know to be true,” said Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “Our government has a legal duty to provide a fair and meaningful process to all people seeking safety at our border.” Crow called on the government to respect the court’s decision and end practices that endanger refugees.
This decision reinforces the core value that individuals fleeing danger have a right to a fair process when seeking protection. Instead of restrictive policies that leave asylum seekers in harm’s way, the court’s decision sends a clear message: it’s time for humane and respectful treatment for all those seeking safety at our borders.
Published October 23, 2024