I’m running a little behind on my postings of court rulings, etc., but here’s Judge Sullivan’s ruling in the U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia handed down on December 17.
The case involves individuals:
Seeking an opportunity for asylum . . . twelve adults and children, alleged accounts of sexual abuse, kidnappings, and beatings in their home countries during interviews with asylum officers.[fn2] These interviews [by asylum officers] were designed to evaluate whether plaintiffs had a credible fear of persecution by their respective home countries. A credible fear of persecution is defined as a “significant possibility” that the alien “could establish eligibility for asylum.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(v). Although the asylum officers found that plaintiffs’ accounts were sincere, the officers denied their claims after applying the standards set forth in a recent precedential immigration decision issued by then-Attorney General, Jefferson B. Sessions, Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018).
Slip op. at 2.
Footnote 2 highlights the plaintiffs’ credible fears:
Plaintiffs Grace, Carmen, Gio, Gina, Maria, Mina, Nora, and Mona are proceeding under pseudonyms.
The Court found that several of the new Trump Administrative “credible fear policies”:
[A]s articulated in Matter of A-B- and the Policy Memorandum [issued by the Department of Homeland Security], violate both the APA [the Administrative Procedure Act] and INA [the Immigration and Nationality Act]. As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, many of these policies are inconsistent with the intent of Congress as articulated in the INA. And because it is the will of Congress—not the whims of the Executive—that determines the standard for expedited removal, the Court finds that those policies are unlawful.
Judge Sullivan found that, with two exceptions, “the new credible fear policies are arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the immigration laws.” He issued a permanent injunction. Slip op. at 106-107.