A panel from the Ninth Circuit Court came to a split decision about a law on processing asylum seekers. Federal immigration law says U.S. officials must consider asylum claims from people at the border. The main question is whether these individuals need to be on U.S. soil or just at the U.S. border to be eligible for asylum.

The court ruled that the federal government cannot send back people who arrive at the southern border without valid travel documents when U.S. ports of entry are full. This practice, called metering, started in 2016 and was formalized under the Trump administration. The Biden administration claims that only those physically on U.S. soil can be considered for asylum, not just those at the border.

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, asylum seekers should be processed at the border. One key part of the law states that anyone “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States” can apply for asylum. However, it does not specify the exact location required.

The debate centers on the phrase “arrives in the United States.” The Biden administration argues that if a person is not on U.S. soil, they haven’t arrived, so they shouldn’t be considered for asylum. On the other hand, the court noted that interpreting “arrives” to mean being physically present on U.S. soil might encourage people to cross the border without being detected, which is unlikely. In a dissenting opinion, one judge believed “arrives in the United States” means being on U.S. soil.

As always, we keep track of news related to U.S. immigration policy. If you have questions about asylum or other immigration issues, please reach out to us. Our team of experienced attorneys is ready to help you get the right advice for your situation.