[ARCHIVED - September 2025]
Individual plaintiff E.Q., along with organizational plaintiffs Amica Center for Immigrant Rights (“Amica Center”), the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project (“FIRRP”), and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (“RAICES”), filed this lawsuit to challenge the Trump administration’s Mandatory Bars Rule, which requires asylum officers to assess, during initial fear screenings, whether it “appears” that an individual would be subject to any of the mandatory bars that would make them ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal.
The bars require protections to be denied if noncitizens are determined to: (1) have persecuted others; (2) have convictions for particularly serious crimes; (3) committed serious nonpolitical crimes outside the United States; (4) be a danger to national security; or (5) have engaged in terrorist activity. For asylum, an additional bar applies: (6) if the noncitizen was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the U.S. These mandatory bars, which are laid out in the INA and require complex determinations, were previously considered during full merits hearings in front of an immigration judge. Now, migrants seeking protection in the U.S. can be deemed ineligible for protections based on the bars much earlier, during a stage when they are normally in immigration detention and have limited access to evidence and counsel. Plaintiffs, represented by Amica Center, the National Immigrant Justice Center, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, and pro bono counsel, argue that the Mandatory Bars Rule is unlawful and will cause refugees with meritorious claims for protections to be barred from relief and deported to dangerous conditions.
On March 19, E.Q., who is in immigration custody, filed an emergency motion to stop his imminent deportation from the United States. After fleeing Afghanistan, E.Q. sought asylum and withholding of removal in the U.S. based on his fear of persecution and death at the hands of the Taliban. Due to the Mandatory Bars Rule, he received an expedited removal order instead, and he never had the chance to go before an immigration judge on his claims. Briefing in the case was, at first, stayed until the parties reported back to the court the status of a new credible fear determination that the Trump administration has agreed to conduct for E.Q. in April. On May 13, after E.Q. received a negative credible fear determination, Plaintiffs renewed their motion for a stay of removal.
On June 26, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay of E.Q.’s removal. On July 14, the government filed a motion to dismiss the case.
Technical Summary
The claims for relief include violations of the INA and APA. Plaintiffs argue that the Mandatory Bars Rule violates the INA’s eligibility criteria for asylum, as the mandatory bars are not intended to be eligibility criteria, but rather “exceptions” to asylum. Additionally, the Mandatory Bars Rule simply requires that an asylum officer find that a mandatory bar “appears” to apply, not a determination, as required by the INA, that a mandatory bar in fact does apply. Plaintiffs also argue that the rule violates other requirements of the INA by shifting the burden of proof to the noncitizen and heightening the standards and requirements for the credible fear assessment. Plaintiffs also allege that the rule violates the APA, as Defendants did not provide reasoned explanations for their decisions, including decisions to depart from prior policies, and failed to consider important factors, evidence, and impacts of the rule.
The denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay of E.Q.’s removal was based on a lack of standing because he could not trace his injury to the mandatory bars rule specifically.
Latest Updates
- 03/17/2025
