1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,560
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. President Trump is

6
00:00:22,720 --> 00:00:25,400
Speaker 1: ratching up his crackdown on the number of people crossing

7
00:00:25,440 --> 00:00:29,360
Speaker 1: the US Mexico border, moving to end asylum protections for

8
00:00:29,480 --> 00:00:33,839
Speaker 1: most Central American migrants who crossed the US southern border.

9
00:00:34,720 --> 00:00:38,360
Speaker 1: The President's new move reverses the decades old approach on

10
00:00:38,440 --> 00:00:41,360
Speaker 1: asylum that the US has had, and the new policy

11
00:00:41,400 --> 00:00:45,480
Speaker 1: is sure to attract legal challenges. Joining me is Leon

12
00:00:45,520 --> 00:00:49,199
Speaker 1: Fresco Apartment at Holland and Knight Leon, who will be

13
00:00:49,240 --> 00:00:53,040
Speaker 1: prohibited from seeking asylum under this new rule published in

14
00:00:53,080 --> 00:00:56,720
Speaker 1: the Federal Register. Well. Under the new rule, it appears

15
00:00:56,760 --> 00:01:00,600
Speaker 1: that anybody who enters the United States and did so

16
00:01:00,720 --> 00:01:05,520
Speaker 1: by by by traveling and around via a third country,

17
00:01:05,560 --> 00:01:08,280
Speaker 1: if they did not seek asylum in that third country

18
00:01:08,319 --> 00:01:11,720
Speaker 1: and were denied or were not able to seek asylum

19
00:01:11,800 --> 00:01:15,800
Speaker 1: based on some very compelling factor, all of those individuals

20
00:01:15,840 --> 00:01:19,440
Speaker 1: will be denied. So basically, anybody who crossed through the

21
00:01:19,480 --> 00:01:23,840
Speaker 1: Mexican border that's not Mexican will basically be barred from

22
00:01:23,840 --> 00:01:27,760
Speaker 1: obtaining asylum if this regulation is allowed to persist. So

23
00:01:28,080 --> 00:01:31,839
Speaker 1: US law allows refugees to request asylum when they arrive

24
00:01:31,920 --> 00:01:34,319
Speaker 1: at the US, regardless of how they got there. But

25
00:01:34,360 --> 00:01:37,600
Speaker 1: there is an exception for those who have come through

26
00:01:37,640 --> 00:01:41,160
Speaker 1: a country considered to be quote safe. So does this

27
00:01:41,240 --> 00:01:45,720
Speaker 1: new rule fit within that exception? So interestingly, that's not

28
00:01:45,840 --> 00:01:48,640
Speaker 1: the exception that cited in the making of the rule.

29
00:01:48,760 --> 00:01:52,240
Speaker 1: The rule does not claim that these third countries are

30
00:01:52,320 --> 00:01:56,080
Speaker 1: safe third countries because the safe third Country provision makes

31
00:01:56,080 --> 00:01:59,800
Speaker 1: it clear that what it says is is that you

32
00:02:00,040 --> 00:02:03,400
Speaker 1: can be removed to a country where there is an agreement,

33
00:02:03,480 --> 00:02:06,920
Speaker 1: and we don't have agreements with these countries, so there's

34
00:02:06,960 --> 00:02:10,880
Speaker 1: not a removal. What they're using instead is a different

35
00:02:10,960 --> 00:02:15,399
Speaker 1: exception that exists in that same statute, which says, quote unquote,

36
00:02:15,600 --> 00:02:20,160
Speaker 1: the Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and

37
00:02:20,200 --> 00:02:24,040
Speaker 1: conditions consistent with this section under which an alien shall

38
00:02:24,080 --> 00:02:27,440
Speaker 1: be ineligible for asylum. And so what they're saying is

39
00:02:27,480 --> 00:02:32,560
Speaker 1: because the statute allows additional limitations and conditions, they're just

40
00:02:32,600 --> 00:02:36,000
Speaker 1: going to add one called you pass through a third country.

41
00:02:36,240 --> 00:02:38,680
Speaker 1: And the question is what part of the statute is

42
00:02:38,680 --> 00:02:41,800
Speaker 1: going to be viewed as more compelling, this part that

43
00:02:41,800 --> 00:02:44,960
Speaker 1: says you can add factors, or the part that specifically

44
00:02:45,040 --> 00:02:47,840
Speaker 1: discusses third countries and says you have to have an

45
00:02:47,880 --> 00:02:51,400
Speaker 1: agreement before you can cancel someone out because of a

46
00:02:51,480 --> 00:02:53,799
Speaker 1: third country. And so that's going to be the debate

47
00:02:53,840 --> 00:02:57,000
Speaker 1: in the court. So the a c l U has

48
00:02:57,080 --> 00:03:02,120
Speaker 1: said that this rule is patently unlawful and will sue

49
00:03:02,160 --> 00:03:07,480
Speaker 1: swiftly in the courts. Which argument do you think would

50
00:03:07,480 --> 00:03:11,160
Speaker 1: win the day? Well, I think both sides can be

51
00:03:11,200 --> 00:03:13,880
Speaker 1: at least comfortable that they have an argument that one

52
00:03:14,000 --> 00:03:18,079
Speaker 1: judge or another would agree. I don't think either side

53
00:03:18,120 --> 00:03:21,880
Speaker 1: has a slam dunk argument. I think if I was

54
00:03:22,000 --> 00:03:25,600
Speaker 1: just fifty fifty had to make a choice at gunpoint,

55
00:03:25,720 --> 00:03:29,640
Speaker 1: I would say that probably the fact that the Congress

56
00:03:29,840 --> 00:03:36,400
Speaker 1: created a statute that described how third country UH disqualification

57
00:03:36,440 --> 00:03:40,320
Speaker 1: would occur means that you can't then create a new

58
00:03:40,680 --> 00:03:45,520
Speaker 1: third country disqualification that's inconsistent with the third country disqualification

59
00:03:45,560 --> 00:03:49,680
Speaker 1: of Congress. You could create other factors that disqualified an

60
00:03:49,720 --> 00:03:53,640
Speaker 1: asylum seeker. So, for instance, let's say you became a hacker,

61
00:03:53,680 --> 00:03:56,960
Speaker 1: and hacking wasn't contemplated in so you could say any

62
00:03:57,040 --> 00:04:00,560
Speaker 1: asylum seeker who was a hacker won't get asylum. Okay,

63
00:04:00,600 --> 00:04:02,880
Speaker 1: that's the kind of thing they were thinking about. But

64
00:04:02,960 --> 00:04:06,840
Speaker 1: when Congress actually described the criteria for a third country

65
00:04:07,160 --> 00:04:11,960
Speaker 1: and didn't list this criteria, the argument is probably going

66
00:04:12,040 --> 00:04:15,400
Speaker 1: to come out that it's inconsistent with what Congress wanted.

67
00:04:15,920 --> 00:04:17,920
Speaker 1: So this is going to end up in the courts,

68
00:04:17,920 --> 00:04:21,520
Speaker 1: where many of the administration's recent attempts to stop border

69
00:04:21,600 --> 00:04:24,920
Speaker 1: crossings have failed. But the administration just got a rare

70
00:04:25,080 --> 00:04:28,440
Speaker 1: win in a sanctuary city case at the Ninth Circuit

71
00:04:28,520 --> 00:04:32,360
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals, which President Trump has repeatedly complained about.

72
00:04:32,880 --> 00:04:36,320
Speaker 1: Tell us about that. Well. So this case is interesting

73
00:04:36,400 --> 00:04:40,719
Speaker 1: because it wasn't like the other sanctuary city cases where

74
00:04:40,760 --> 00:04:43,760
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice has said, if you don't enforce

75
00:04:43,800 --> 00:04:46,919
Speaker 1: immigration law, we're not giving you any federal grant funding.

76
00:04:47,240 --> 00:04:49,640
Speaker 1: This case was a little bit trickier because what it

77
00:04:49,720 --> 00:04:53,080
Speaker 1: did was there was a point system that every city

78
00:04:53,120 --> 00:04:56,120
Speaker 1: could apply with in order to get federal funding for

79
00:04:56,160 --> 00:05:01,359
Speaker 1: police officers, and it gave extra points for or the

80
00:05:01,560 --> 00:05:04,640
Speaker 1: issue of whether a city was allowing ICE to get

81
00:05:04,760 --> 00:05:08,240
Speaker 1: criminal detainees out of its jails. And so Los Angeles

82
00:05:08,480 --> 00:05:11,719
Speaker 1: didn't want to get those extra points because it didn't

83
00:05:11,720 --> 00:05:14,800
Speaker 1: want ICE to have access to its jails. And so

84
00:05:14,880 --> 00:05:17,039
Speaker 1: it suited and it said you shouldn't give extra points

85
00:05:17,080 --> 00:05:22,680
Speaker 1: to anyone because this this due condition wasn't created by Congress.

86
00:05:22,680 --> 00:05:26,160
Speaker 1: If Congress wanted that, it would have created this condition.

87
00:05:26,720 --> 00:05:29,720
Speaker 1: And the courts disagreed to to one and said, yes,

88
00:05:29,760 --> 00:05:32,960
Speaker 1: Congress didn't create that condition. But Congress basically gave a

89
00:05:33,040 --> 00:05:37,479
Speaker 1: blank check to the Department of Justice to create any

90
00:05:37,560 --> 00:05:40,160
Speaker 1: point system it wanted, and so it could add this

91
00:05:40,279 --> 00:05:42,200
Speaker 1: factor if it wanted to, as long as it wasn't

92
00:05:42,200 --> 00:05:46,839
Speaker 1: a factor that was so unreasonable that it violated the Constitution.

93
00:05:47,200 --> 00:05:51,640
Speaker 1: So that's in the Ninth Circuit. Do do cities that

94
00:05:51,680 --> 00:05:54,080
Speaker 1: are in, for example, the Second Circuit have to listen

95
00:05:54,120 --> 00:05:57,280
Speaker 1: to that? Well, no, exactly. This is being challenged all

96
00:05:57,279 --> 00:05:59,080
Speaker 1: over the country and it has been barred in the

97
00:05:59,160 --> 00:06:02,839
Speaker 1: third circuits, Second Circuit, and this is probably there's probably

98
00:06:02,839 --> 00:06:05,160
Speaker 1: gonna be what's called on bank review in the Ninth

99
00:06:05,160 --> 00:06:09,920
Speaker 1: Circuit where the individuals who piled this lawsuit, the City

100
00:06:09,920 --> 00:06:13,320
Speaker 1: of Los Angeles will probably seek an eleven judge panel

101
00:06:13,400 --> 00:06:16,400
Speaker 1: to review the decision of the three judge panel and

102
00:06:16,440 --> 00:06:18,839
Speaker 1: see if they can overturn it. And so most likely

103
00:06:18,880 --> 00:06:21,480
Speaker 1: this case ends up in the Supreme Court at some point.

104
00:06:21,960 --> 00:06:24,799
Speaker 1: But the stakes are not as high as a pure

105
00:06:24,920 --> 00:06:27,400
Speaker 1: ban on grant funding. This is just can you get

106
00:06:27,480 --> 00:06:30,960
Speaker 1: preference on grant funding? And so this is why I

107
00:06:31,000 --> 00:06:33,719
Speaker 1: think the Ninth Circuit had a little bit more sympathy

108
00:06:33,800 --> 00:06:37,000
Speaker 1: for it. Also, let's just return for a moment to

109
00:06:37,080 --> 00:06:41,200
Speaker 1: the asylum questions. The Trump administration says that, you know,

110
00:06:41,240 --> 00:06:44,400
Speaker 1: the changes are meant to close the gap between that

111
00:06:44,520 --> 00:06:48,159
Speaker 1: initial asylum screening, which is called the credible fear interview,

112
00:06:48,560 --> 00:06:53,000
Speaker 1: and the final decision on asylum. To the vast majority

113
00:06:53,240 --> 00:06:57,040
Speaker 1: of immigrants claim they have a credible fear of returning home,

114
00:06:57,360 --> 00:07:00,960
Speaker 1: and just that is that usually affirmed, right, So what

115
00:07:01,040 --> 00:07:05,080
Speaker 1: happens is this, if you're applying for asylum when you

116
00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:08,280
Speaker 1: can't when you enter the United States, then you you

117
00:07:08,800 --> 00:07:12,120
Speaker 1: first survive and get to stay until your claim is heard.

118
00:07:12,320 --> 00:07:15,160
Speaker 1: If you can survive what's called the credible fear standard,

119
00:07:15,520 --> 00:07:18,680
Speaker 1: which has about a nine success rate, because you basically

120
00:07:18,720 --> 00:07:22,640
Speaker 1: have to show that there's a significant possibility that you

121
00:07:22,760 --> 00:07:26,320
Speaker 1: have a reasonable fear of removal, and the people view

122
00:07:26,320 --> 00:07:27,960
Speaker 1: that as like that you have a one or two

123
00:07:27,960 --> 00:07:31,360
Speaker 1: percent chance of success, and that gives you enough to

124
00:07:31,360 --> 00:07:34,760
Speaker 1: to move on. But if you're not eligible for asylum,

125
00:07:34,960 --> 00:07:36,800
Speaker 1: then the only way you can stay is if you

126
00:07:36,840 --> 00:07:40,360
Speaker 1: get something called withholding of removal, which then is a

127
00:07:40,440 --> 00:07:43,600
Speaker 1: much harder standard to prove, and you basically have to

128
00:07:43,640 --> 00:07:45,960
Speaker 1: show that you have a fifty percent chance of being

129
00:07:46,000 --> 00:07:50,240
Speaker 1: persecuted if you return home, and so that gets granted

130
00:07:50,240 --> 00:07:52,600
Speaker 1: at a much much lower rate. And so that's what

131
00:07:52,680 --> 00:07:55,600
Speaker 1: the White House is trying to accomplish. And you know,

132
00:07:56,080 --> 00:07:59,160
Speaker 1: the rates here are complicated in terms of how many

133
00:07:59,200 --> 00:08:02,720
Speaker 1: people are winning these claims because the statistics are all

134
00:08:02,720 --> 00:08:06,720
Speaker 1: over the map. The statistics sometimes site cases where people

135
00:08:06,760 --> 00:08:09,120
Speaker 1: didn't end up going to court, and it's not clear

136
00:08:09,160 --> 00:08:11,520
Speaker 1: if people had noticed to go to court or not,

137
00:08:11,920 --> 00:08:15,520
Speaker 1: and so people will say people lose or some people

138
00:08:15,520 --> 00:08:18,600
Speaker 1: will say people win, because they'll only count. You have

139
00:08:18,640 --> 00:08:22,280
Speaker 1: to leave it there. Thanks, thanks so much. It is

140
00:08:22,320 --> 00:08:25,440
Speaker 1: a very very confusing area of the law. Thanks so much.

141
00:08:27,640 --> 00:08:30,600
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can

142
00:08:30,640 --> 00:08:34,360
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcasts, SoundCloud

143
00:08:34,480 --> 00:08:38,360
Speaker 1: and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

144
00:08:38,840 --> 00:08:40,120
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg