|
GRACE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Defendants-Appellants
For UNHCR’s intervention at the district court level, see the Brief of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as Amicus Curaie in Support of Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in case Grace, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et. al., Defendants. For UNHCR’s intervention in this case, see Brief of Amicus Curiae United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees in case Grace, et. al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. William P. Barr, Attorney General, et. al., Defendants-Appellants. From the Court: "Twelve asylum seekers challenge a
host of executive-branch policies adopted to implement the
expedited-removal provisions of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), [...]. Broadly speaking, the
challenged policies concern how asylum officers determine
whether an alien has demonstrated a “credible fear” of
persecution, a threshold showing that permits an alien who
would otherwise be immediately deported to seek asylum in the
United States. The asylum seekers principally argue that the
policies raise the bar for demonstrating a credible fear of
persecution far above what Congress intended and that the
Attorney General and various agencies violated the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), [...]
by failing to adequately address important factors bearing on
the policies’ adoption. Largely on these grounds, the district
court found the policies inconsistent with IIRIRA, the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), [...]
seq., and the APA, and enjoined their enforcement. For the
reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm in part and reverse
in part."
20 May 2021
| Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
| Topic(s):
Agents of persecution
- Burden of proof
- State protection
| Countries:
United States of America
|
