A federal judge in California on Wednesday issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's new rule barring most immigrants from obtaining asylum in the US if they transit through Mexico.

US District Judge Jon Tigar handed down his decision, which takes effect immediately, following a hearing on the controversial policy that the government argued was necessary to stem the flow of migrants into the US.

The policy would have effectively prevented most asylum seekers from Central America from gaining entry into the United States at the southern border as the majority come through Mexico.

Tigar's decision came as another federal judge in Washington heard a separate challenge on Wednesday and allowed the new rule to be implemented.

However, Tigar's ruling means that the new policy cannot be implemented until the legal challenges are resolved.

"This new rule is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws," Tigar wrote in his order, denouncing the government's decision to promulgate the new law as "arbitrary and capricious."

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Center for Constitutional Rights had challenged the policy in court last week. Two other advocacy groups had filed a separate challenge in Washington.

"Today's ruling is an important victory for incredibly vulnerable individuals and families from besieged Central American countries seeking refuge in our country," Melissa Crow, an attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center's Immigrant Justice Project, said in a statement following Tigar's ruling.

"We will continue to fight this draconian policy as well as the myriad of others through which the Trump administration continues to wage war on asylum-seekers and our nation's asylum system."

The lawsuit filed in California argues that the new rule was in violation of immigration laws that clearly state that asylum could not be denied based on a person's route to the United States.

The White House measure targets the stream of hundreds of thousands of migrants from Central America and other countries who have tried to cross into the United States from Mexico and request asylum over the past few months.

These requests -- increasingly made by families saying they have fled endemic violence and poverty in their countries -- allow the applicants to remain in the United States and to move around freely while their cases are adjudicated, which can take two years.

The number of border-crossers detained by the US Border Patrol surged to a 13-year high of more than 144,000 in May before easing to 104,000 in June -- still up 142 percent from a year earlier.

Most are families from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

A federal judge in California on Wednesday issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's new rule barring most immigrants from obtaining asylum in the US if they transit through Mexico.

A federal judge in California on Wednesday issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's new rule barring most immigrants from obtaining asylum in the US if they transit through Mexico. US District Judge Jon Tigar handed down his decision, which takes effect immediately, following a hearing on the controversial policy that the government argued was necessary to stem the flow of migrants into the US. The policy would have effectively prevented most asylum seekers from Central America from gaining entry into the United States at the southern border as the majority come through Mexico. Tigar's decision came as another federal judge in Washington heard a separate challenge on Wednesday and allowed the new rule to be implemented. However, Tigar's ruling means that the new policy cannot be implemented until the legal challenges are resolved. "This new rule is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws," Tigar wrote in his order, denouncing the government's decision to promulgate the new law as "arbitrary and capricious." The American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Center for Constitutional Rights had challenged the policy in court last week. Two other advocacy groups had filed a separate challenge in Washington. "Today's ruling is an important victory for incredibly vulnerable individuals and families from besieged Central American countries seeking refuge in our country," Melissa Crow, an attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center's Immigrant Justice Project, said in a statement following Tigar's ruling. "We will continue to fight this draconian policy as well as the myriad of others through which the Trump administration continues to wage war on asylum-seekers and our nation's asylum system." The lawsuit filed in California argues that the new rule was in violation of immigration laws that clearly state that asylum could not be denied based on a person's route to the United States. The White House measure targets the stream of hundreds of thousands of migrants from Central America and other countries who have tried to cross into the United States from Mexico and request asylum over the past few months. These requests -- increasingly made by families saying they have fled endemic violence and poverty in their countries -- allow the applicants to remain in the United States and to move around freely while their cases are adjudicated, which can take two years. The number of border-crossers detained by the US Border Patrol surged to a 13-year high of more than 144,000 in May before easing to 104,000 in June -- still up 142 percent from a year earlier. Most are families from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

US judge blocks Trump administration's new asylum rule

An initial volley in a potential barrage of legal challenges to President Donald Trump&#39;s new restrictions on immigration came on Saturday on behalf of two Iraqis with ties to US&nbsp;security forces who were detained at New York&#39;s JFK Airport.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, the men are challenging the directive on constitutional grounds. The suit says their connections to the American forces made them targets in their home country and the pair had valid visas to enter the United States.

The lawsuit, which seeks to block Trump&#39;s order on behalf of a class of visa-holders and asylum-seekers, highlights some of the legal obstacles facing the new administration as it tries to carry out the directive.

The plight of one of the men, a former US&nbsp;Army interpreter, is especially compelling, said David Leopold, a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, who is not involved in the suit.

&quot;Here is a guy who was a translator who worked for the US&nbsp;military for years, who himself was targeted by terrorists,&quot; he said. &quot;It is clear that if he is sent back, he facing a direct threat to his life.&quot;

That man, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, was released later on Saturday and told a crowd of reporters outside John F. Kennedy International Airport that he did not have ill feelings about his detention.

&quot;America is the greatest nation, the greatest people in the world,&quot; he said.

Darweesh, 53, worked for the US&nbsp;Army and for a US&nbsp;contractor in Iraq from 2003 to 2013 as an interpreter and engineer, the lawsuit said.

The second plaintiff, Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, 33, was still being held. He is the husband of an Iraqi woman who worked for a US&nbsp;contractor in Iraq, and she already lives in Houston, the suit said.

Ten other travelers not named in the suit were being detained at JFK Airport on Saturday afternoon, US Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, told reporters.

Trump, a Republican, on Friday signed a sweeping executive order that put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily barred travellers from Iraq and six other Muslim-majority countries. The order would help protect Americans from terrorist attacks, the president said.

Representatives for the White House could not immediately be reached for comment on Saturday.

Supporters of the order say the president has wide authority to limit the entry of foreign nationals from specific countries when it is in the national interest.

&quot;If we decided to give green cards only to redheads who can play the spoons, we can do that,&quot; said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies.

The lawsuit on behalf of the Iraqis challenges Trump&#39;s order on several grounds. It says the order violates the US&nbsp;Constitution&#39;s guarantee of due process by taking away their ability to apply for asylum, and violates the guarantee of equal protection by discriminating against them on the basis of their country of origin without sufficient justification.

It also says the order violates procedural requirements of federal rulemaking.

In a separate lawsuit, a California-based private attorney on Saturday filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the order, bringing the legal action against Trump on behalf of the &quot;people of the United States&quot; and California, according to a copy of the action posted to news website Politico.com.

The lawsuit accused Trump of violating the US&nbsp;Constitution by infringing on the power of lawmakers in Congress to enact laws on immigration.

Andrew Shalaby, the attorney who brought the lawsuit, acknowledged to Politico he may need to find individual plaintiffs for the suit if a judge rules that is necessary. Shalaby could not be reached for further comment.

Another legal challenge is expected on Monday, when the Council on American-Islamic Relations has said it plans to announce a lawsuit arguing that the order targets Muslims and violates the U.S. guarantee of religious freedom.

Trump&#39;s order does not mention specific religions, but in an interview on Friday with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Trump said he was acting to help Christians in Syria who were &quot;horribly treated.&quot;

Comments like that could come back to haunt the president in litigation over his order, said Hiroshi Motomura, an immigration expert at UCLA School of Law.

&quot;There were comments during the campaign that focused very much on religion as the target,&quot; Motomura said. &quot;If the record showed that the origins of a particular measure were based on targeting a particular group, that could be challenged in court.&quot;

Eric Rothschild, senior litigation counsel at religious liberties group Americans United For Separation of Church and State, said Trump has created a perverse situation for asylum-seekers.

&quot;People will be quizzed on their faith in order to gain access to the country, maybe motivating them to deny their faith,&quot; he said.

(Reuters)

The lawsuit seeks to block Trump's order on behalf of a class of visa-holders and asylum-seekers

An initial volley in a potential barrage of legal challenges to President Donald Trump's new restrictions on immigration came on Saturday on behalf of two Iraqis with ties to US security forces who were detained at New York's JFK Airport. In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, the men are challenging the directive on constitutional grounds. The suit says their connections to the American forces made them targets in their home country and the pair had valid visas to enter the United States. The lawsuit, which seeks to block Trump's order on behalf of a class of visa-holders and asylum-seekers, highlights some of the legal obstacles facing the new administration as it tries to carry out the directive. The plight of one of the men, a former US Army interpreter, is especially compelling, said David Leopold, a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, who is not involved in the suit. "Here is a guy who was a translator who worked for the US military for years, who himself was targeted by terrorists," he said. "It is clear that if he is sent back, he facing a direct threat to his life." That man, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, was released later on Saturday and told a crowd of reporters outside John F. Kennedy International Airport that he did not have ill feelings about his detention. "America is the greatest nation, the greatest people in the world," he said. Darweesh, 53, worked for the US Army and for a US contractor in Iraq from 2003 to 2013 as an interpreter and engineer, the lawsuit said. The second plaintiff, Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, 33, was still being held. He is the husband of an Iraqi woman who worked for a US contractor in Iraq, and she already lives in Houston, the suit said. Ten other travelers not named in the suit were being detained at JFK Airport on Saturday afternoon, US Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, told reporters. Trump, a Republican, on Friday signed a sweeping executive order that put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily barred travellers from Iraq and six other Muslim-majority countries. The order would help protect Americans from terrorist attacks, the president said. Representatives for the White House could not immediately be reached for comment on Saturday. Supporters of the order say the president has wide authority to limit the entry of foreign nationals from specific countries when it is in the national interest. "If we decided to give green cards only to redheads who can play the spoons, we can do that," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies. The lawsuit on behalf of the Iraqis challenges Trump's order on several grounds. It says the order violates the US Constitution's guarantee of due process by taking away their ability to apply for asylum, and violates the guarantee of equal protection by discriminating against them on the basis of their country of origin without sufficient justification. It also says the order violates procedural requirements of federal rulemaking. In a separate lawsuit, a California-based private attorney on Saturday filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the order, bringing the legal action against Trump on behalf of the "people of the United States" and California, according to a copy of the action posted to news website Politico.com. The lawsuit accused Trump of violating the US Constitution by infringing on the power of lawmakers in Congress to enact laws on immigration. Andrew Shalaby, the attorney who brought the lawsuit, acknowledged to Politico he may need to find individual plaintiffs for the suit if a judge rules that is necessary. Shalaby could not be reached for further comment. Another legal challenge is expected on Monday, when the Council on American-Islamic Relations has said it plans to announce a lawsuit arguing that the order targets Muslims and violates the U.S. guarantee of religious freedom. Trump's order does not mention specific religions, but in an interview on Friday with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Trump said he was acting to help Christians in Syria who were "horribly treated." Comments like that could come back to haunt the president in litigation over his order, said Hiroshi Motomura, an immigration expert at UCLA School of Law. "There were comments during the campaign that focused very much on religion as the target," Motomura said. "If the record showed that the origins of a particular measure were based on targeting a particular group, that could be challenged in court." Eric Rothschild, senior litigation counsel at religious liberties group Americans United For Separation of Church and State, said Trump has created a perverse situation for asylum-seekers. "People will be quizzed on their faith in order to gain access to the country, maybe motivating them to deny their faith," he said. (Reuters)

Trump immigration order: Iraqis with US ties first to sue over new restrictions

us-asylum-seekers

Us Asylum Seekers, News on Us Asylum Seekers, stories on Us Asylum Seekers, articles on Us Asylum Seekers, Us Asylum Seekers stories at Wion, Us Asylum Seekers news, Us Asylum Seekers latest news

us asylum-seekers

US judge blocks Trump administration's new asylum rule

Trump immigration order: Iraqis with US ties first to sue over new restrictions