The case revolves around rules that block asylum claims for individuals crossing the U.S. southern border between ports of entry and require noncitizens to schedule appointments through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) CBP One mobile app in order to be eligible for asylum. An interim final rule issued in June called for the restrictions to remain until illegal border crossings drop below 1,500 per day for seven consecutive days, a threshold later extended to 28 days in September.
In support of its bid for summary judgment, the DOJ defended the asylum restrictions, dismissing claims that the rules were arbitrary, capricious, or exceeded the government’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The DOJ also addressed concerns raised by the groups about the dangers asylum seekers face in northern Mexico, asserting that the government had reasonably considered these risks and concluded that its actions would improve the immigration system and create safer pathways for migrants, including the use of the CBP One app.
