Immigrants Who Use Legal Marijuana Can Be Denied Citizenship For Lacking Good Moral Character

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Under a new guidance issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), immigrants may find themselves barred from obtaining citizenship if they possess or use marijuana—even if doing so is legal where they live. The new policy also clarifies that even employment in the industry can prevent an immigrant from being a naturalized citizen.

As more states legalize medical and recreational marijuana, immigrants may find themselves entirely left out. 

Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance. Possession of even small amounts of marijuana can qualify as a federal misdemeanor. Giving marijuana to another person—even for no money—can qualify as trafficking. 

To be eligible to become a naturalized citizen, an immigrant must demonstrate they had “good moral character” for the past five years before filing their application. But the law presumes that a person does not have “good moral character” if they have committed any violations of controlled substance laws. This is the case even if they were never arrested or convicted. There is an exception for those with a “single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.” 

Because the federal government hasn’t interfered with state legalization, many immigrants may have been unaware of these consequences. But USCIS has now made it clear that state laws do not prevent immigration consequences. 

According to the guidelines, “possession of marijuana for recreational or medical purposes or employment in the marijuana industry may constitute conduct that violates federal controlled substance laws.” 

This can be enough to tip the scales against them in judging whether they have “good moral character.” This means buying marijuana for personal use or even working as a cashier at a dispensary might bar an immigrant from citizenship. They will have to wait up to five years before being eligible to apply for citizenship again. 

Similar conflicts even get in the way of international travel. After Canada legalized recreational marijuana last year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a warning to travelers. U.S. officials can now deny Canadians entry if they are going to the United States for “reasons related to the marijuana industry.” Those that work in the industry but are traveling for unrelated reasons won’t get turned away, although using marijuana in a legal state could disqualify them from future entries. 

As the legal marijuana industry expands, immigrants seeking to take advantage of the industry find themselves increasingly at risk. USCIS’s guidance is a clear sign that that Congress still needs to act on this state and federal conflict. This will ensure immigrants are not unfairly denied citizenship for partaking in something completely legal in their state. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4140-Immigrants-Who-Use-Legal-Marijuana-Can-Be-Denied-Citizenship.html

Making Sense of the Rising Number of Families Arriving at the Border

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Over the past few months, a new trend has emerged at the U.S.-Mexico border: more families are crossing and presenting themselves to U.S. officials to ask for asylum. But even though the number of people crossing the border are still at historically low levels, the Trump administration alleges it is overwhelmed by the arrival of families. These changes in migration patterns have exposed Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) inability to respond in a humane and effective way. 

In February 2019, the Border Patrol apprehended 66,450 individuals after crossing the border. This number represented the largest number of arrests at the border in years. However, it was only 5,000 higher than a similar spike in overall arrivals in spring 2014. During that last spike, only 38 percent of people arriving at the border were families and unaccompanied children. Last month, that percent rose to nearly 65 percent—42,999 in total. 

This is the largest number of families apprehended at the border in one month since the government began keeping records in 2012. 

CBP border stations were originally created to receive, hold, and process single Mexican adults who were more quickly returned to their home country. In the past, many families were detained in these stations for days at a time, where they suffered freezing temperatures, lack of hygiene, and inadequate medical care. Many would then be transferred to family detention centers, where they were locked up with their children for weeks or months. 

But now that more than half of all border crossers are asylum-seeking families, in recent weeks the government has started to release families along the border, citing a lack of capacity. 

Government officials are not legally required to detain asylum-seeking families. Officials have always had the discretion to release or parole into the country those who come to the border with instructions to appear at an immigration court for a removal hearing at a later date. Yet CBP has presented its inability to hold everyone in detention as a crisis. 

Days after President Trump took office, he issued an executive order which required CBP to reduce the use of humanitarian parole. Following this executive order, CBP increased the use of detention at the border even for individuals who were not flight risks, partly to deter other families from coming. This inhumane practice caused concrete harm to those forced to remain in immigration custody for long periods of time. 

Although the agency claims to be overwhelmed, it has had to deal with large numbers of children and families in the past, including in 2014 and 2016. Instead of coming up with solutions to care for children its custody, CBP doubled down on detention and deterrence. By shifting to more readily releasing families now, the government is recognizing that it can’t detain its way out of the current situation and that release is a viable option. 

Most of the recently released families will end up appearing in immigration court and seeking protection, as is their right. By avoiding the use of detention, CBP is saving taxpayer money and choosing not to subject asylum seekers to harmful detention which deprives them of access to counsel and limits their ability to obtain relief. 

The rise in family apprehensions masks the reality that the border is more secure than ever. With Central Americans making up more than 90 percent of individuals apprehended crossing the border, the days of large numbers of Mexican immigrants coming across the border for work is almost gone. New studies show that with improving economic conditions and a resurgence in national pride, few Mexicans are interested in traveling to the United States.

Faced with these new migration patterns, the Trump administration must recognize that rising border apprehensions do not present the same challenges as in the past. To address the changes, the administration should invest in better infrastructure, including ensuring that families and children are not subjected to deplorable conditions while in CBP custody. 

Fuente: www.immigrationimpact.com/

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4086-Rising-Number-of-Families-Arriving-at-the-Border.html

Number Of Undocumented Immigrants In US At A 25-Year Low

Written by Walter Ewing

Contrary to President Trump’s claim that “large-scale unlawful migration” across the southern border constitutes a “national emergency” that requires building a wall, research suggests that undocumented immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border is actually the lowest it’s ever been in the past 25 years. The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) has issued a report with this conclusion, which reinforces the findings of a similar report released by the Pew Research Center in November 2018. 

According to CMS, the total number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has decreased by one million since 2010 and now stands at about 10.7 million. At the same time, apprehensions at the border have dropped dramatically, falling from 1.6 million in 2000 to about 300,000 in 2017—a decline of more than 80 percent. These numbers would not seem to signal an “emergency” at the border. 

CMS also reports that from 2010 to 2016, about two thirds of new undocumented immigrants became undocumented by overstaying temporary visas, while only one third entered across the southern border without authorization. A wall is clearly not going to have an impact on visa overstays. 

According to the report, the undocumented population is shrinking mostly because there are more undocumented immigrants leaving the country than coming. Undocumented arrivals fell from 1.4 million in 2000 to about 550,000 in 2007 and have continued near that level. But the number of undocumented immigrants who left the country—either of their own volition or because they were deported—kept increasing and grew from 370,000 in 2000 to 770,000 in 2016. 

This is occurring despite the fact that the U.S. labor market is in reasonably good shape, meaning that the economic “pull” factors which have traditionally drawn undocumented immigrants to the United States are not exerting nearly as much force as they once did. CMS points to heightened immigration enforcement in the United States and improved economic conditions in Mexico as likely causes of this new pattern. 

CMS points out that the official statistics they use to estimate new undocumented arrivals are likely inflated to some degree by the erroneous inclusion of Central American asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are exercising a right recognized under international and domestic law to request safe haven in another country—meaning that they are not undocumented immigrants. But in official statistics, asylum seekers and the undocumented are frequently conflated with each other. 

The declaration of a “national emergency” at our southern border may be politically expedient for the Trump administration, but it has no basis in fact. Migratory pressures along the border are at all-time lows. 

Nevertheless, the situation of asylum seekers who are being stymied by the Trump administration in their quest to seek protection in the United States is a serious problem that must be addressed. But it is a problem that a wall is not going to fix.

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4039-number-of-undocumented-immigrants-in-United-States-decreases.html

Congress Members and Others Argue Against Turning Back Asylum Seekers

Written by Karolina Walters

The Trump administration’s policy of turning back asylum seekers has been devastating, as vulnerable people are repeatedly denied access to the asylum process at ports of entry (POEs) along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

Now, Members of Congress, states, organizations, and law professors are standing up to the administration by supporting a lawsuit that challenges the government’s inhumane actions. These prominent groups filed amicus briefs that collectively dismantled the government’s arguments seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, Al Otro Lado v. Nielsen. 

In the lawsuit, the organizational plaintiff Al Otro Lado, Inc. and thirteen individual plaintiffs argue that turning back asylum seekers denies them their statutory right to access the asylum process and their constitutional right to due process of law. The practice also violates U.S. obligations under international law. 

The government argues its treatment of asylum seekers is justified, maintaining it has the right to control the flow of persons at the border and that it does not have the “capacity” to process all those seeking access to the asylum process at the southern border. It also argues U.S. law does not apply to asylum seekers who were prevented from accessing the asylum process, even if they were denied access by U.S. officials mere feet from the border. 

The amicus brief filed by 77 members of Congress argued that the government’s policy violates the congressional intent behind the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Act protects access to the asylum process and makes that access mandatory. 

It does not allow the government to deny access to the asylum process, even temporarily, based on the whims of the Executive Branch. 

The brief also provided evidence against the government’s “lack of capacity” arguments. The evidence showed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is processing asylum seekers below their own stated capacity and that the administration has not prioritized increasing capacity in budgetary requests. 

Attorneys General from 19 states and the District of Columbia filed a second brief detailing the inhumane and traumatizing conditions faced by asylum seekers turned back from the U.S. border. The Attorneys Generals argue their states and the District welcome more than 73 percent of the asylees entering the United States and will have to divert additional resources to public schools and health systems, among other service providers, to “assist the victims of the unnecessary trauma that defendants’ Turnback Policy causes.” 

A group of immigration law professors filed another brief attacking the government’s claims that asylum seekers’ rights are determined solely by a border line drawn on a map. The law professors argue that U.S. officials act under U.S. law when they keep asylum seekers from accessing the asylum process: 

“ [T]heir very ability to exert governmental power on [asylum seekers] shows that those [asylum seekers] had reached the place where U.S. power exists… [Moreover], if U.S. power projects beyond the map line, then so too does the Constitution’s demand that the government not deprive [these individuals] of due process. ” 

Amnesty International filed a brief explaining that under international law, the United States cannot return someone to any place where they may fear for their lives. The brief outlines how the Mexican border region qualifies as such a place for asylum seekers. Five other organizations which advocate for immigrant youth, including Kids in Need of Defense, focused on the particular dangers faced by unaccompanied minors subjected to the policy. 

19 other organizations presented evidence that undermined the government’s justifications for its treatment of asylum seekers. Despite the claim of insufficient capacity to process asylum seekers, the brief included data that in October 2016, CBP processed more than twice as many individuals at POEs than in December 2018. 

“Since October 2016,” the brief states, “every field office at the U.S.-Mexico border has reported significant declines in the processing of undocumented immigrants. ” 

It asserts that the real motivation behind the government’s policy is not a lack of capacity, but rather “blatant animus toward immigrants, particularly those from Latin America, and a desire to deter current and future migrants from seeking asylum in the United States.” 

These six diverse briefs share a common theme: the law and the facts do not justify, or even support, the government’s turn backs of asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. 

 

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4034-argue-rejection-against-asylum-seekers.html

Border Towns Are Among The Safest In The United States

Written by Melissa Cruz

On Monday evening in El Paso, Texas, two very different images of the U.S.-Mexico border emerged.

President Trump held a rally to make the case for his border wall again, repeating his usual talking points on the supposed dangers lurking in the region. Just a block away, former Democratic Representative from El Paso, Texas Beto O’Rourke held an opposing rally to counter the president’s claims on immigrants, refugees, border town safety, and the need for a wall. Both events were characterized as a final attempt to sway congressional leaders, who must come to an agreement on whether to provide border wall funding by Friday.

These two demonstrations show just how easy it is to stir up the public around the issue of immigration, particularly when the backdrop is the southern border region. However, the truth is the communities along the U.S.-Mexico border are among the safest in the United States.

El Paso, the site of the two rallies, has been considered one of the safest cities in the nation for the last 20 years, long before any border fencing was built.

In fact, in the last week, two governors of border states ordered their National Guard troops to withdraw from patrolling the border, calling Trump’s recent decision to deploy troops there as nothing but “political theater.”

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham was the first to withdraw troops from her state’s southern border last week. In total, 118 National Guard troops had been called to New Mexico, traveling from Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

In a statement announcing the withdrawal, Grisham said:

“I reject the federal contention that there exists an overwhelming national security crisis at the southern border, along which are some of the safest communities in the country. …New Mexico will not take part in the president’s charade of border fear-mongering by misusing our diligent National Guard troops.”

On Monday, California Governor Gavin Newsom also ordered troops to be withdrawn from his state’s southern border with Mexico. He echoed Grisham’s sentiment, saying the president had created “a manufactured border crisis.”

Other elected officials from border regions have opposed Trump’s rhetoric on the state of the border. Republican congressman Will Hurd, whose Texas district has the longest border with Mexico, called a concrete border wall “the most expensive and least effective way to do border security.” And Texas Representative Vincente Gonzalez recently pointed out that the border town of McAllen, Texas had zero murders in 2018 and ranks as the seventh safest city in the United States.

Government statistics back this up. FBI data shows that border towns have statistically lower violent crime rates than other parts of the country. Former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner David Aguilar even testified that “border communities are safer than the interior locations of each of the border states.”

The reality of many of these border communities is simple—they have low crime rates, residents feel safe, and their elected officials understand border security does not mean a border wall. In making its decision on border security funding this week, Congress should take a closer look at where the real problems are.

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/ 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4019-Border-Towns-The-Safest-In-The-United-States.html 

Promise to ‘Build the Wall’ Hurts Businesses and Residents Along the Border

Written by Tory Johnson

As the partial government shutdown stretches on, many individuals, families, and businesses around the country are struggling. At the heart of the shutdown and budget standoff is President Trump’s promise to “build the wall.” Yet for many people and businesses along the border, this is the last thing they want. 

Ahead of President Trump’s visit to the U.S.-Mexico border last week, business owners and leaders spoke out against the president’s continued demand to build additional fencing along the border. 

Business leaders in San Diego say that President Trump hyper-focusing on the wall is bad for the local economy and also an ineffective way to use taxpayer money, in part because the wall itself and the construction process can make it harder for people to cross the border at legal ports. With an estimated 90,000 northbound daily crossings at the San Ysidro port of entry, it is vital that business employees, customers, and goods or services can cross the border smoothly and efficiently. 

Businesses and communities throughout the border region have long voiced concern about the border wall and militarization stifling cross-border commerce, literally creating barriers that cut into vital revenue and relationships. 

According to Karim Bouris, executive director of Business for Good San Diego, San Ysidro businesses lost upwards of $5 million in November when the government closed the busy border crossing for several hours to install additional security barriers. In Santa Cruz County, California, businesses near the Tumacácori National Historical Park suffered when there were fewer visitors and tourists coming to the park from the Mexican side. 

Fewer tourists and shoppers means less money for the city of Nogales in Arizona, which relies on its sales taxes to pay for important services like law enforcement and sanitation. In border towns like Nogales, thriving businesses that attract new and return customers are vital to the local economy. 

But it can be hard to do this when customers can’t get across the border—or don’t want to. City Councilmember Marcelino Varona told Arizona Public Media that because of new barbed wire fencing in Nogales, “the frontier here—the border—looks like a prison system instead of a community.” 

In addition to U.S. businesses relying on shoppers coming from the Mexican side of the border, increased military presence and border fortifications negatively impact Americans visiting Mexico. For example, the U.S. government recently purchased a public parking lot in Nogales close to the border. Rather than sitting in long car lines to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. residents have parked in the lot and gone through the pedestrian crossing into Mexico, which is often a more efficient way to cross for short trips. 

The lot is currently inaccessible. After the government bought it, they closed the lot to the public and started filling it with military equipment. Without access to the lot, border residents have to park further away or skip the trip altogether—meaning fewer dollars added to the local economy and ultimately less money for public services in Nogales. 

When it comes down to it, border businesses and residents have been dealing with the presence of military personnel, equipment, physical barriers, and yes—a wall—for years. The border wall already exists and shutting down the government in an attempt to get money to build even more is a poor economic and policy decision. 

Ask those who see and cross the border every day—taxpayer dollars should fund policies that make ports of entry more efficient, safe, and support the people and businesses that make the border a viable place to live and visit.

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/
http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3993-Build-the-Wall-Hurts-Businesses-and-Residents.html

2018 Closes On a Week Filled With Immigration Victories and New Challenges

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

2018 proved that the only thing you can predict about the Trump administration’s immigration policy is it’s unpredictable. On Wednesday, two separate court decisions dealt blows to the Trump administration’s efforts to deter asylum seekers. On Thursday, the administration announced an unprecedented new plan to force asylum seekers to remain in Mexico, overturning current practices in use for decades And on Friday, the president held Congress hostage as he continued to threaten to shut down the government over $5 billion in border wall funding

The most recent rollercoaster began on Wednesday morning when a federal court in Washington, DC struck down part of former Attorney General Jeff Session’s efforts to prevent victims of domestic violence or gangs from receiving asylum. The ruling prevents the administration from applying the new limits at the credible fear interview stage, the initial screening for many asylum seekers apprehended at the border. However, the ruling did not prevent Sessions’ limits on asylum from being applied in affirmative asylum interviews or immigration court proceedings. 

Later on Wednesday, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction in a case challenging the Trump administration’s asylum ban for individuals who entered the United States between ports of entry. The injunction extends a previous order which had halted the plan only days after it went into effect. On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reject the Trump administration’s request to put the decision on hold, a further blow to the asylum ban. 

On Thursday morning, the Trump administration announced that it had taken yet another major action to halt asylum seekers from coming to the United States. It rolled out a new plan to return to Mexico those asylum seekers who arrive at U.S-Mexico border for the duration of immigration court proceedings in the United States. Details of the plan, including who it will apply to, how it will work, and where it will be used in Mexico, remain vague. 

Mexican officials expressed total surprise at the announcement, and many were wary about the effects the plan might have on border cities. One official in Tijuana told Buzzfeed News that “We don’t want that. It will create a huge problem for us.” However, the government of Mexico responded by announcing they would issue humanitarian visas and work permits to asylum seekers waiting for U.S. immigration court hearings. 

Finally, by the end of the week, the President made yet another surprising move to shut down the government over a bipartisan plan that would have funded the government into February without providing any additional money for a border wall. Despite declaring last week that he would take proud ownership of a government shutdown, on Friday morning the President instead tried to shift the blame to Democrats for voting against a bill that would provide an additional $5 billion to build a wall along the southern border. It is possible that a shutdown would continue through January 3rd, when Democrats take control of the House of Representatives. 

Rather than offering well-reasoned plans that can both survive court challenges and advance American prosperity, the administration remains relentlessly focused on obstructing asylum seekers and attacking the immigrant community. As we move into 2019, we should expect more of the same. But the time and energy spent on these efforts should instead be directed toward working with Congress to build legislative compromise to achieve what is best for the nation.

 

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/ 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3976-2018-a-year-of-immigration-victories-and-new-challenges.html

5 Ways to Prevent the Next Migrant Caravan

 

Written by Royce Murray
Just two weeks ahead of the midterm elections, much attention is being placed on a migrant caravan of Central Americans making their way north through Mexico. Now reported to include more than 7,000 people, the mostly Honduran group is seeking protection from pervasive violence at home. Even though the southern border is more secure than ever and the United States has well-established processes for handling asylum applicants, there are concrete ways to help prevent future caravans from migrating en masse. 


1. Address Root Causes of Central America’s Instability

We first need to take an honest look at why migrants from the Northern Triangle of Central America flee. People must have profound and imminent reasons to pick up their lives and leave their homes to journey to a faraway country. For many Hondurans, leaving was not a choice; their safety was at risk and their lives and the lives of their children were on the line. Rather than threatening to cut off the foreign assistance that helps stabilize these countries, the United States has a national interest in addressing root causes of violence and instability in the region so people are able to thrive at home. 


2. Improve Oversight and Accountability of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

Migrants travel together because there is safety in numbers. The journey is a perilous one, fraught with threats from opportunistic gangs and smugglers as well as the harsh conditions of the trek. When migrants travel alone, they place themselves at greater risk of harm and the chance that they will be mistreated—either physically or procedurally—at the U.S. border. CBP officials have a well-documented history of turning back asylum seekers at ports of entry and subjecting them to harsh treatment while in custody. Improving oversight and accountability for CBP will help ensure that our border processing remains safe and orderly. 


3. Help Mexico Improve Their Asylum System

Central American asylum seekers need more viable options for protection in the region. The United States has a vested interest in further strengthening the Mexican asylum system so that it can better accommodate larger numbers of asylum applications and afford meaningful protection to those at risk. Collaborating with our southern neighbor, rather than threatening them, is far more likely to achieve a successful and viable partnership to address this regional migration issue. 


4. Increase Refugee Admissions

If we don’t want large groups of people to take dangerous journeys in order to seek protection, we must expand U.S. refugee processing for the Central American region. Rather than slashing refugee allocations to record-low numbers, we should increase avenues to apply for protection from abroad. In fiscal year 2018, only 955 refugees were admitted from all of Latin America and the Caribbean and minimal refugee processing is expected to be conducted in the coming year. 


5. Resume In-Country Refugee Processing for Central American Children

Finally, children are at particular risk of violence in places like Honduras where gangs target teens for recruitment or threaten parents with harm to their children if they don’t agree to extortion demands. We should resume in-country processing for unaccompanied children (the “Central American Minors” or “CAM” program) in Central America and ensure that the program can adjudicate applications expeditiously, so children have the option of seeking safety within their home country. 

There is no evidence that this caravan of migrants poses any threat to the safety and well-being of the United States. We can, however, avoid large movements like this if we supplement existing avenues to apply for asylum by providing safe and orderly alternatives to those in need of protection. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3932-how-to-prevent-the-next-caravan-of-migrants.html

New Court Filing Highlights the Government’s Official “Turnback Policy” for Asylum Seekers

Written by Karolina Walters

Eight new asylum seekers joined a lawsuit last week that challenges U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials’ widespread and well-documented practice of turning back asylum seekers at U.S. ports of entry (POE) along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The plaintiffs also amended the complaint in the lawsuit with new facts documenting an official “Turnback Policy” that formalizes CBP’s unlawful practice. Each new plaintiff has been subjected to the Turnback Policy, fears for his or her safety in Mexico, and wishes to seek asylum in the United States. 

As explained in the new filing, under the Turnback Policy, CBP officials assert an unverified “lack of capacity” and then utilize a variety of methods to prevent and delay asylum seekers from reaching ports of entry and making their asylum claims. These methods include coordinating with Mexican immigration authorities or other third parties to implement a “metering” or waitlist system; instructing asylum seekers to wait on the bridge, in the pre-inspection area, or at a shelter in Mexico until there is adequate space at the port of entry; or simply telling asylum seekers that they cannot be processed because the port of entry is “full” or “at capacity.” 

Plaintiffs reference internal CBP documents showing that the Turnback Policy existed as early as May 2016. However, high-level officials in the Trump administration confirmed the existence of the policy, and escalated it, in the spring of 2018 in reaction to news that a large group of asylum seekers, referred to as a “caravan,” sought to present themselves at the San Ysidro point of entry in California. 

Notably, the filing cites DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen’s May 2018 statement confirming that the government was “metering” asylum seekers and referring to the asylum process as a “loophole” that must be fixed. Recently, a report by DHS’ Office of the Inspector General also confirmed the use of “metering.” 

Plaintiffs’ allege that CBP officials reinforce the sanctioned Turnback Policy with the widespread practices documented in the original complaint, including misrepresentations about the U.S. asylum process, threats, abuse and physical force, coercion, outright denials of access, and physically obstructing access to POEs. Together, the resulting restriction of access to the asylum process, through outright denials and unreasonable delays, puts asylum seekers at imminent risk of grave harm or deportation. Such denial of access to the U.S. asylum process violates both U.S. and international law. 

The lawsuit is filed as a class action, meaning that the individual plaintiffs seek to represent other, unnamed asylum seekers who seek or will seek to claim asylum at a point of entry and are similarly denied access. Thus, this lawsuit may have lasting impact on how our government will treat those seeking protection at our borders. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3928-Turnback-Policy-for-Asylum-Seekers-in-United-States.html