Categories: world

Ninth Circuit Court grants more protection for asylum seekers

The statement by the United States Appeal Court for the Ninth Circuit extends constitutional habeas corpus guarantees to those applying for asylum at the border and states that they can apply for a hearing in federal courts before they are briefly deported – even if the court did not specify which standards the courts must use to evaluate such representations. The ruling applies to asylum seekers in the five states that are part of the jurisdiction of the court – California, Arizona, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii – and since it is contrary to a previous judgment rejecting such legal protection in the third circle, it is likely that the matter will resolved in the end by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, legal analysts have said that the Western Right's decision is likely to have severe consequences for immigration protection efforts by enabling thousands to remain in the country while seeking court review. According to the current procedure, any immigrant who arrives at the border and expresses a fear of persecution in his or her home country should be referred to an interview with an asylum officer. Those who succeed in convincing the official that they have a credible fear may enter the country and continue their asylum cases in the immigration courts. Those who cannot request a review by an immigration judge, but it is usually clear and favorable decisions are rare. There is usually no access to a lawyer, and no opportunity to challenge the decision. expulsion takes place quickly.…

The statement by the United States Appeal Court for the Ninth Circuit extends constitutional habeas corpus guarantees to those applying for asylum at the border and states that they can apply for a hearing in federal courts before they are briefly deported – even if the court did not specify which standards the courts must use to evaluate such representations.

The ruling applies to asylum seekers in the five states that are part of the jurisdiction of the court – California, Arizona, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii – and since it is contrary to a previous judgment rejecting such legal protection in the third circle, it is likely that the matter will resolved in the end by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, legal analysts have said that the Western Right’s decision is likely to have severe consequences for immigration protection efforts by enabling thousands to remain in the country while seeking court review.

According to the current procedure, any immigrant who arrives at the border and expresses a fear of persecution in his or her home country should be referred to an interview with an asylum officer. Those who succeed in convincing the official that they have a credible fear may enter the country and continue their asylum cases in the immigration courts. Those who cannot request a review by an immigration judge, but it is usually clear and favorable decisions are rare. There is usually no access to a lawyer, and no opportunity to challenge the decision. expulsion takes place quickly.

In the case of the appeal court, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a member of the Sri Lankan Tamil ethnic minority, was arrested about 25 meters north of the border near San Ysidro, California, and told an asylum officer he was afraid to return to his homeland. The officer found no credible fear, and it was found that a supervisor and an immigration judge were granted.

Mr. Thuraissigiam was in deportation when he submitted a habeas corpus petition to a federal court. He claimed that the asylum officer had failed to evoke an important background on his case, including having been detained and beaten by Sri Lanka’s army officer on two occasions, and at one time had been dropped into a well and almost drunk. He also said there were communication problems between the translator and both the asylum officer and the immigration judge.

As a result, his lawyers argued that he was deprived of “a meaningful right to seek asylum”.

A district judge in Los Angeles rejected that argument, but the three-judge tribunal, who sat in San Francisco, claimed that even if an asylum seeker can lack the right to a full trial in immigration law, the Constitution requires a more complete review than

At its historic core, 48-page sentence written by Judge A. Wallace Tashima said, “Habea’s corpus writing has served as a means of reviewing the legality of executive detention, and it is in this context that its protection has been strongest.” 19659009]
Source link

Share
Published by
Faela