{"id":53758,"date":"2026-04-28T14:22:42","date_gmt":"2026-04-28T22:22:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/elrabogados.com\/?p=53758"},"modified":"2026-04-29T11:05:43","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T19:05:43","slug":"raices-v-mullin-asylum-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/elrabogados.com\/en\/raices-v-mullin-asylum-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"RAICES v. Mullin: Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Asylum Ban Proclamation"},"content":{"rendered":"

A federal appellate court in RAICES v. Mullin<\/em> struck down a Trump-era proclamation that attempted to broadly eliminate access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. In addition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the executive branch cannot override asylum protections that Congress created through federal law.<\/p>\n

As a result, this ruling reinforces a key principle in immigration law: individuals arriving at the border must still receive a lawful opportunity to request asylum protection.<\/p>\n

Case information:
\nRAICES v. Mullin Litigation Page<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s Day 1 Asylum Proclamation<\/h2>\n

 <\/p>\n

The case challenges a presidential proclamation issued on the first day of the administration titled \u201cGuaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion.\u201d The proclamation relied on Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend asylum access at the border.<\/p>\n

Specifically, the policy attempted to block individuals from seeking asylum while they were physically present at the border. However, immigration advocates argued that federal law does not allow the president to eliminate asylum procedures established by Congress.<\/p>\n

Read the proclamation here:
\nWhite House Presidential Action<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Court Rejects Attempt to Eliminate Asylum Rights<\/h2>\n

 <\/p>\n

The D.C. Circuit rejected the government\u2019s interpretation of Section 212(f). In doing so, the court found that immigration law requires the government to follow statutory asylum procedures, even when enforcing border restrictions.<\/p>\n

In addition, the court emphasized several key findings:<\/p>\n