| 
		U.S. asylum seekers returned to Mexico 
		despite fear claims under policy challenged in court 
		 Send a link to a friend 
		
		 [March 23, 2019] 
		By Dan Levine and Lizbeth Diaz 
 SAN FRANCISCO/TIJUANA (Reuters) - Two 
		people from Central America seeking asylum in the United States were 
		sent back across the border to Mexico on Thursday, despite their claims 
		that a return to Mexico was too dangerous, as part of the first test of 
		a controversial new Trump administration policy.
 
 The returns came as a U.S. federal judge in San Francisco on Friday 
		heard legal arguments on whether or not to halt the policy, known as the 
		Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which was rolled out in late 
		January.
 
 The major policy shift is based on a decades-old law that says migrants 
		who enter from a contiguous country can be returned there to wait as 
		their deportation cases move forward. But this provision had never been 
		used for these types of returns before.
 
 The American Civil Liberties Union and other rights groups have sued, 
		saying that migrants are being returned to dangerous border towns where 
		they cannot access legal counsel or get proper notice of their hearings.
 
		
		 
		
 Two migrants from Honduras tried to make the case to U.S. asylum 
		officers that Mexico was too dangerous for their return, according to 
		their lawyer Robyn Barnard from the nonprofit group Human Rights First. 
		But on Thursday evening, after being held in custody for two days, they 
		were sent back across the border.
 
 A third migrant, 35-year-old Douglas Oviedo from Honduras, said he was 
		interviewed by authorities and returned to Tijuana on Tuesday. They are 
		among the first to test the process of claiming a fear of returning to 
		Mexico.
 
 Asylum seekers typically undergo what is known as a "credible fear" 
		interview to assess their eligibility for a court process. But the 
		standard of proof for a "reasonable fear" of being returned to Mexico is 
		much stiffer.
 
 Barnard said one client, 19-year-old Ariel, who asked to be identified 
		only by his middle name, broke down in tears during the interview with 
		U.S. officials, which lasted several hours.
 
		
		 
		Another client, a 29-year-old man who said he was an evangelical leader 
		who fled Honduras because of threats over his anti-gang activity, was 
		also sent back, Barnard said.
 [to top of second column]
 | 
            
			 
            
			Migrants from Central America are seen escorted by U.S. Customs and 
			Border Protection (CBP) officials after crossing the border from 
			Mexico to surrender to the officials in El Paso, Texas, U.S., in 
			this pictured taken from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico December 3, 2018. 
			REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez/File Photo 
            
 
            More than 200 people have been returned to Mexico so far under the 
			MPP, which is now in place at the San Ysidro and Calexico ports of 
			entry in California and the El Paso, Texas, port of entry and to 
			migrants who ask for asylum between ports of entry in the San Diego 
			area, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
 That is a small portion of the tens of thousands of migrants mostly 
			from Central American who have tried to enter the United States and 
			claim asylum in recent months.
 
 The U.S. government has said the policy is necessary to stem the 
			ballooning number of asylum claims, many of which are ultimately 
			denied, because migrants can end up living in the United States for 
			years due to huge immigration court backlogs.
 
 DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment on their 
			cases. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which conducts 
			asylum interviews said it cannot comment on individual cases because 
			confidentiality rules apply.
 
 "A lot is still unknown, I haven't been given any written reasons or 
			determinations for their return," Barnard said.
 
            
			 
            
 Lawyers for the rights groups and for the government argued over the 
			technical aspects of the policy on Friday in front of U.S. District 
			Judge Richard Seeborg. He asked a series of detailed questions about 
			whether the Trump administration had discretion to implement the 
			policy. Seeborg also wondered how broadly of an injunction he could 
			issue and whether any stop to the policy should apply nationally. He 
			is expected to rule on the case in a written decision.
 
 (Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco and Lizbeth Diaz in 
			Tijuana; Additional reporting and writing by Mica Rosenberg; Editing 
			by Leslie Adler)
 
		[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
			reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.  
			Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |