Summary
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Supreme Court reinterpreted provisions in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (1996) to give border patrol officers the authority to turn away asylum seekers approaching the southern border without assessing their asylum claims as required by international laws. This decision was the culmination of decades of U.S. deterrence policies that have prevented asylum seekers from reaching U.S. territory by pushing them back into Mexico or by expelling them to other countries. Building on the 1993 Supreme Court decision in Sale v. Haitians Centers Council, Inc. that allowed halting and repatriation of asylum seekers on the high seas by the US Coast Guard, the Court ruled in Mullin v. AOL that the U.S.’s obligation not to return a person to persecution—a requirement in international law called non-refoulement—does not apply when an asylum seeker is standing just on the Mexican side of the borderline. The Mullin v. AOL decision was one of many steps taken to undermine asylum during the second Trump administration including: making it harder for those who have crossed the border to receive a screening interview with an asylum officer; routing applications from asylum officers directly to immigration courts; and issuing precedent decisions for immigration judges that drastically limit asylum eligibility. Subsequently, asylum granting rates have plummeted resulting in deportation from the U.S of many people with legitimate standing to claim sanctuary.
Source
Excerpt of Justice Alito’s Opinion:
This case presents a straightforward question: whether an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico “arrives in the United States” when he or she is still in Mexico. In the decision below, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered “yes.” That is wrong. In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person “arrives in” a place—for example, a house, a city, or a country—before the person enters that place. The context in which the phrase “arrives in the United States” is used in the immigration statutes at issue here supports an ordinary-meaning reading. So does the presumption against extraterritoriality. We therefore reverse…
In sum, an alien that “arrives in the United States” is entitled to inspection, is deemed an applicant for admission, and may apply for asylum. By contrast, until an alien “arrives in the United States,” he is not entitled to inspection, is not an applicant for admission, and cannot apply for asylum, except on other grounds not here at issue…
According to respondents, if border officials may turn away aliens who arrive at ports of entry and thus deny them the chance to apply for asylum, some aliens will respond by attempting to enter the country illegally at other locations. That concern is overstated
Except from the report “Crossing the Line” by the organization Human Rights First:
In February 2017 a Guatemalan woman was kidnapped in Reynosa immediately after she was turned away by CBP agents after she requested protection at the Hidalgo port of entry. This woman had already suffered the tragedy of her child’s death during their journey north, as they fled gang violence in Guatemala…
In February 2017, Alma, a Honduran woman and her three children were kidnapped in Reynosa after CBP officials turned them away at the Hidalgo port of entry when they asked for asylum. Alma had fled Honduras after her other child was killed by gang members. Between December 2016 and February 2017 the family had presented at the port on three separate occasions, carrying documentation that would support their asylum claims. Each time CBP informed the family that U.S. facilities were full and she would have to turn around and return to Mexico…
