More of Trumpians' lawlessness. . . enjoined, out of California, today. Backgrounder, here.
Here is the full well reasoned opinion, and a bit:
. . . .Addressing the precise statutory question posed by the MPP, the panel held that a plain-meaning reading of § 1225(b) — as well as the Government’s longstanding and consistent practice — made clear that a § (b)(1) applicant may not be “returned” to a contiguous territory under § 1225(b)(2)(C), which is a procedure specific to a § (b)(2) applicant. . . .
Based on the Supreme Court’s conclusion that Congress intended in § 1253(h)(1) (the predecessor to § 1231(b)(3)(B)) to “parallel” the anti-refoulement provision of Article 33 of the 1951 Convention, and based on the record in the district court, we conclude that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the MPP does not comply with the United States’ anti-refoulement obligations under § 1231(b). We need not, and do not, reach the question whether the part of the MPP challenged as inconsistent with our anti-refoulement obligations should have been adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking. . . .
Of course, we expect Trump to appeal to the Supremes, but once again -- the rule of law has prevailed. Indeed, his time is drawing to a close. Do go vote. Onward.
An asylee MUST be asked by the government -- if they have a credible fear, if returned. Trumpians said they alone, unlike anyone in a half-century. . . may ignore what the law plainly required. They said they need not even ask the asylee -- let alone hold a 8 USC § 1225(b)(2) required hearing:
Now you know. Losers.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment