Strict Trump-era rules for migrants fleeing violence reversed

The U.S. government ended Trump administration policies that made it harder for migrants to gain asylum based on domestic or gang violence. The move, lauded by immigration advocates, comes as high numbers of migrants arrive on the U.S. southern border.

Win McNamee/AP
Attorney General Merrick Garland departs after speaking at the Justice Department in Washington, June 15, 2021. The U.S. has ended two Trump-era policies that made it harder for immigrants fleeing violence to qualify for asylum.

The United States government on Wednesday ended two Trump administration policies that made it harder for immigrants fleeing violence to qualify for asylum, especially Central Americans.

Attorney General Merrick Garland issued new instructions to immigration judges to stop following the Trump-era rules that made it tough for immigrants who faced domestic or gang violence to win asylum in the U.S. He also undid a policy that made it difficult for immigrants to obtain asylum based on threats to a family member.

The moves could make it easier for immigrants to win their cases for humanitarian protection and were widely celebrated by immigrant advocates.

“The significance of this cannot be overstated,” said Kate Melloy Goettel, legal director of litigation at the American Immigration Council. “This was one of the worst anti-asylum decisions under the Trump era, and this is a really important first step in undoing that.”

Mr. Garland said he was making the changes after President Joe Biden ordered his office and the Department of Homeland Security to draft rules addressing complex issues in immigration law about groups of people who should qualify for asylum.

Gene Hamilton, a key architect of many of former President Donald Trump’s immigration policies who served in the Justice Department, said in a statement that he believed the change would lead to more immigrants filing asylum claims based on crime and that should not be a reason for protections.

The Biden administration changes come as U.S. immigration authorities have reported unusually high numbers of encounters with migrants on the southern border. In April, border officials reported the highest number of encounters in more than 20 years, though many migrants were repeat crossers who previously had been expelled from the country under pandemic-related powers. The number of children crossing the border alone also has hovered at all-time highs.

Many Central Americans arrive on the border fleeing gang violence in their countries. But it isn’t easy to qualify for asylum under U.S. immigration laws, and the Trump-era policies made it that much harder.

More than half of asylum cases decided by the immigration courts in the 2020 fiscal year were denials, according to data from the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. Four years earlier, it was about 1 in 5 cases.

In the current fiscal year, people from countries such as Russia and Cameroon have seen higher asylum grant rates in the immigration courts than people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, the data shows.

Immigration judges abide by instructions set by the attorney general, and their courts are within the Justice Department.

In one of the reversals, Mr. Garland restored a 2014 case that defined married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship as a group deserving of asylum, a decision that eased the way for other victims of domestic violence. In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions overturned that guidance and added that victims of gang violence also should be largely ineligible, extending the scope to large swaths of non-government actors.

In another case involving a Mexican man who claimed his father was targeted by a drug cartel, Mr. Garland reversed a decision by former Attorney General William Barr that said such family ties were insufficient grounds for an asylum claim.

Jason Dzubow, an immigration attorney in Washington who focuses on asylum, said he recently represented a Salvadoran family in which the husband was killed and gang members started coming after his children. While Mr. Dzubow argued they were in danger because of their family ties, he said the immigration judge denied the case, citing the Trump-era decision among the reasons.

Mr. Dzubow welcomed Mr. Garland’s changes but said he doesn’t expect to suddenly see large numbers of Central Americans winning their asylum cases, which remain difficult under U.S. law.

“I don’t expect it is going to open the floodgates, and all of a sudden everyone from Central America can win their cases. Those cases are very burdensome and difficult,” he said. “We need to make a decision: Do we want to protect these people?’”

This story was reported by The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.