Opposing An Attempted Subversion Of Existing Law In DC: Grace [Carmen] -- On Asylum Seeking, And "Credible Fear"

Here is an exceptionally well-reasoned rebuke of the Trump administration attempt to make "credible fear" a high hurdle that asylum seekers must clear, in order to stay in the US long enough to get to a meaningful hearing on their claims, for protection here in America.

It was filed late today (54 pages worth!) in DC federal District Court, in the Carmen case. Here is a bit:

. . . .As an initial matter, [Donald Trump's] unlawful attempt to change, through Executive policy, the statutory credible fear standard must be understood against the backdrop of the system Congress enacted. The credible fear standard is intended to be a low, threshold standard, and to satisfy it the individual need not establish her ultimate eligibility for asylum. To prevail at a credible fear interview, the applicant need only show a “significant possibility” of asylum eligibility – i.e., a “significant possibility” of a 1 in 10 chance of persecution, or a fraction of 10%. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(v) (defining “credible fear” as “a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien’s claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum”) (emphasis added); Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 440. . . .

Thus, the low credible fear standard that Congress enacted is intended to ensure that “there should be no danger that an alien with a genuine asylum claim will be returned to persecution.” H.R. REP. NO. 104-469, pt. 1, at 158 (1996). Yet, as explained below, the new credible fear policies seek to ratchet up the standards in credible fear proceedings in multiple interrelated ways -- leading to the denial of many potentially meritorious claims, especially those like Plaintiffs’ that are related to domestic violence or gangs. . . .

The new policies instead essentially require asylum applicants to show an absolute certainty that the [foreign] government will not protect them from feared harm. . . .

I sincerely urge you to read the memorandum of law, all 54 pages. I will not tonight lay out all the ways that 45 has (yet again) demeaned humanity, by unlawfully trampling the will of the peoples' Congress, and with it, decades of settled court precedents -- pretending to do so by simple executive rule. This particular attempt will inure to Jeff Sessions' eternal shame as well, when the definitive history of 2017 and 2018 in America is written.

But rest well-assured: this cruel purported "rule" will be stricken by the courts. Count on it. People arriving at our door are immediately invested with certain rights. Ones 45 cannot (by simple silly order) take away. Only an act of Congress can do that.

नमस्ते