The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration can continue to enforce a policy requiring some asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases are processed. The ruling from the San Francisco-based appeals court places a stay on a preliminary injunction on the asylum policy issued by a lower court. The panel of judges wrote in the opinion that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had shown that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm if the policy was halted because it “takes off the table one of the few congressionally authorized measures available to process the approximately 2,000 migrants who are currently arriving at the Nation’s southern border on a daily basis.” ADVERTISEMENT The judges also found that the policy was not implemented in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because it is not one of the policies covered by the act and therefore does not require certain processes to take place ahead of its implementation. Several immigration groups had sued DHS over the policy on behalf of migrants affected by the policy, arguing that the practice was improperly implemented and put the migrants in harm’s way. However, some of the judges were highly critical of DHS’s implementation of the policy in individual opinions authored on the decision, signaling that they could oppose the policy in a later ruling. Judge Paul Watford, an Obama nominee, wrote in his opinion that he believes the administration’s treatment of asylum-seekers is in violation of the U.S.’s obligation to not return those migrants to countries where they could face persecution. He pointed to DHS guidelines that state that immigration officers ask applicants who are being returned to Mexico if they fear persecution or torture in the nation only if the migrants say so themselves first. “It seems fair to assume that at least some asylum seekers subjected to the [policy] will have a legitimate fear of persecution in Mexico,” Watford wrote. And he said it was “equally fair to assume” that many migrants would not know they wouldn’t be returned to Mexico if they faced persecution there and that it could result in the return of some asylum-seekers to Mexico who should have been allowed to stay in the U.S. Watford wrote that he is “at a loss to understand” how the federal agency wasn’t already asking migrants if they could face harm if they were returned to Mexico. “DHS has not, thus far, offered any rational explanation for this glaring deficiency in its procedures. (One suspects the agency is not asking an important question during the interview process simply because it would prefer not to hear the answer),” Watford wrote in his opinion, adding that he believes the immigration groups could win their argument against the policy as a result. And Judge William Fletcher wrote that he believes current federal law does not allow for the policy to take place, calling DHS's stance in the case "clearly and flagrantly wrong." The Clinton nominee rejected DHS’s argument that its interpretation of federal law allows for a category of migrants generally allowed to stay in the U.S. during asylum proceedings to be considered as a different category allowed to be returned to other countries during their cases. And he pointed to recent writings from the Supreme Court and Attorney General William Barr Bill BarrWatchdog group suing for Trump obstruction memo blasts DOJ for trying to block release Biden DOJ to appeal court order to release Trump obstruction memo CNN reporter's phone and email records secretly obtained by Trump administration: report MORE defining the two separate categories of migrants to further criticize DHS’s argument. “I regret that my colleagues on the motions panel have uncritically accepted the Government’s arguments,” Fletcher wrote. “I am hopeful that the regular argument panel that will ultimately hear the appeal, with the benefit of full briefing and regularly scheduled argument, will be able to see the Government’s arguments for what they are—baseless arguments in support of an illegal policy that will, if sustained, require bona fide asylum applicants to wait in Mexico for years while their applications are adjudicated.” Omar Jadwat, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement that the asylum policy is putting the affected migrants "at serious risk of harm every day" it continues. However, he pointed to the judges who raised legal concerns about the policy as "good reason to believe that ultimately this policy will be put to a halt."<doc-sep>The Trump administration is reportedly preparing to return asylum seekers to Mexico while they await immigration hearings following a temporary lift on an injunction barring the administration from action. Staff at the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are preparing to enforce President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which returns asylum seekers to Mexico while they await a hearing. USCIS officials told staffers to ready themselves for enforcement of the policy, according to emails obtained by the Los Angeles Times. The “Remain in Mexico” policy is intended to help immigration officials who face a growing crisis at the border. The policy has likely contributed to growing numbers of immigrants trying to cross the border illegally rather than through ports of entry, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The move comes after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California temporarily lifted an injunction preventing the administration from enforcing the policy. The temporary lift followed San Francisco Judge Richard Seeborg’s April 8 order for the administration to halt the deportation of asylum seekers, according to The Associated Press. An internal memo referenced the 9th Circuit’s decision “that granted the government’s emergency motion for a stay of a lower court ruling that had blocked the policy,” or “Migrant Protection Protocols [(MPPs)],” reported the LA Times. “This means that implementation of MPP may resume pending the ongoing litigation,” the memo reads, according to the LA Times. “In the meantime, we have staff on standby for new referrals.” No asylum seekers have yet been returned to Mexico due to the lift, according to the LA Times. Two civil liberties groups sued the administration in February over its December 2018 policy sending foreign nationals seeking asylum in the U.S. back to Mexico while they await immigration hearings. The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies on behalf of 11 asylum seekers. It alleges the administration is violating immigrants’ rights to apply for asylum by making it difficult to do so. (RELATED: Sanctuary Laws Allowed Illegal Immigrant Who Tried To Kill A Cop Remain In The US, ICE Claims) The Trump administration says it is within the bounds of immigration law to send migrants to the country from which they traveled while they await their case hearings, according to NBC. The appeals court will decide within the week whether to extend the temporary lift on Seeborg’s injunction, according to the LA Times. Follow Grace on Twitter. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.<doc-sep>The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals late Tuesday granted the Trump administration's request to send asylum seekers back to Mexico to wait out court proceedings temporarily. The court order reversed a decision by a San Francisco judge that would have blocked the policy — giving President Trump a temporary victory on immigration. TRUMP ORDERS ASYLUM OVERHAUL, INCLUDING NEW FEE FOR APPLICATIONS AND FASTER ADJUDICATIONS, AMID 'SEVERE' BORDER CRISIS The case must still be considered on its merits at a lower court in San Francisco and could end up at the Supreme Court. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg ruled April 8 that the policy should be halted while a lawsuit, filed on behalf of 11 asylum applicants and several other organizations, proceeds. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit along with the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, said that despite the ruling, "there is good reason to believe that ultimately this policy will be put to a halt." “Asylum seekers are being put at serious risk of harm every day that the forced return policy continues," Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. "Notably, two of the three judges that heard this request found that there are serious legal problems with what the government is doing." The lawsuit on behalf of 11 asylum seekers from Central America and legal advocacy groups says the Trump administration is violating U.S. law by failing to adequately evaluate the dangers that migrants face in Mexico. It also accuses Homeland Security and immigration officials of depriving migrants of their right to apply for asylum by making it difficult or impossible for them to do so. The Trump administration says the policy responds to a crisis at the southern border that has overwhelmed the ability of immigration officials to detain migrants. Growing numbers of families are fleeing poverty and gang violence in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Last year, the Justice Department eliminated gang violence and domestic abuse as a possible justification for seeking asylum. The so-called "Remain in Mexico" policy was one of the primary innovations of former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who left her role with the Trump administration last month. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Asylum law, conservatives point out, is intended to shield individuals from near-certain death or persecution on account of limited factors like religious or political affiliation — not poor living conditions and economic despair. Most asylum applicants are ultimately rejected for having an insufficient or unfounded personalized fear of persecution, following a full hearing of their case before an asylum officer or an immigration judge. Fox News' Raymond Bogan, Gregg Re and The Associated Press contributed to this report.<doc-sep>
The 9th Circuit allowed the administration to continue its controversial policy while the case makes its way through the appeals process. Mario Tama / Getty Images A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration can, for now, continue to require some Central American migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims proceed in US immigration court. In April a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the policy, but before that could happen, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals panel instituted a temporary stay. The San Francisco–based panel — Judges Paul J. Watford, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, and William A. Fletcher — on Tuesday granted the government's stay of the preliminary injunction, pending its appeal to the court, meaning the administration can continue to enforce the controversial policy while the case is decided. Though the ruling is not the final word on the policy, it is a rare court victory for the Trump administration, whose had past attempts to curb immigration blocked by the federal courts. Under the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) policy, commonly known as "Remain in Mexico," 3,267 Central American asylum-seekers have been forced to return to Mexico since January, according to Mexican government officials. The policy was first launched at the San Diego–Tijuana port of entry and has since expanded across the San Diego sector and to ports of entry in Calexico, California, and El Paso, Texas. Joe Raedle / Getty Images Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said asylum-seekers were being put in harm's way after being forced to return to Mexico. Still, he remained hopeful that the policy would be stopped down the line. "Notably, two of the three judges that heard this request found that there are serious legal problems with what the government is doing," said Jadwat in a statement. "So there is good reason to believe that ultimately this policy will be put to a halt." In his concurring opinion, Judge Fletcher said the administration is wrong in stating it has the authority to send back asylum-seekers based on a statute that certain immigrants can be returned to the contiguous country they had arrived from. "The government is wrong. Not just arguably wrong, but clearly and flagrantly wrong," Fletcher said. Fletcher said he hoped that a full hearing would result in the panel seeing "the government’s arguments for what they are — baseless arguments in support of an illegal policy that will, if sustained, require bona fide asylum applicants to wait in Mexico for years while their applications are adjudicated." At an April 24 hearing, attorneys for the US government and ACLU attorneys argued over whether Central Americans being returned to Mexico were exempt from the statute. The government said they were not exempt, and the ACLU said they were. In making its decision, the liberal-leaning 9th Circuit said attorneys for the Department of Homeland Security are likely to prevail on the argument that asylum-seekers are not exempt. The judges also said that DHS is likely to prevail on the claim that the administration didn't go through the regulatory process and deliberative system that allows for public comment before instituting the sweeping changes. Mario Tama / Getty Images People walk at the El Chapparal port of entry on their way to enter the United States in Tijuana, Mexico. The panel noted that despite the fear expressed by the plaintiffs, they believed that the likelihood of asylum-seekers being harmed is somewhat reduced by the Mexican government's commitment to giving the migrants work permits and humanitarian status. In his concurring opinion, Judge Watford said that while it appears DHS is authorized to send back these asylum-seekers under the statute the attorneys argued over, congressional authorization alone doesn't mean the policy is being implemented in a legal manner. DHS said it was rolling out the policy in compliance with domestic and international legal obligations, noting that no one would be forced to return to Mexico under the policy if they would more likely than not be persecuted on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion or would face torture. "In my view, DHS has adopted procedures so ill-suited to achieving that stated goal as to render them arbitrary and capricious," Watford said. "Under DHS’s current procedures, immigration officers do not ask applicants being returned to Mexico whether they fear persecution or torture in that country." Immigration officers only inquire about these fears if the asylum-seeker first brings it up.