A federal court has struck down a controversial Biden-era immigration rule that restricted access to asylum, reaffirming procedural rights for migrants and sending a powerful message on due process.
At a Glance
- Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled the asylum regulation unlawful on May 9
- The rule limited legal counsel and required scheduled border entry
- The court found violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act
- The ruling was declared effective immediately, with minimal impact on border operations
- A separate federal ruling also reinforced due process for deported asylum seekers
Court Declares Rule Unlawful
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled that the Biden administration’s immigration rule—requiring migrants to schedule border appointments and severely limiting legal access—violated federal law. According to The Epoch Times, Contreras concluded that these restrictions contravened the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), laws designed to preserve the right to seek asylum regardless of how an individual enters the country.
The regulation also reduced the time for asylum seekers to consult with attorneys from 24 to just four hours—a provision the court found incompatible with due process standards.
Minimal Immediate Impact
Although the judge nullified the rule, he denied the federal government’s request to delay enforcement, citing low current border encounter numbers and the temporary suspension of the asylum application process at the southern border. This means the decision will take immediate effect, but its practical implications may be limited in the short term.
Watch a report: Federal Judge Strikes Down Rule Affecting Asylum Seekers.
Parallel Case Underscores Due Process
The ruling parallels a separate immigration case in which U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher ordered the return of a deported Venezuelan migrant, Daniel Lozano-Camargo. He had been removed to El Salvador despite a 2024 court-approved agreement barring deportations of unaccompanied minors with pending asylum claims.
Gallagher emphasized that “measuring utility using the wrong yardstick” denies legitimate hearings. She ruled that the government must return Lozano-Camargo to the U.S. for due process, noting that the justification for his removal was both legally and procedurally deficient.
A Legal Emphasis on Asylum Rights
These dual decisions reflect a broader judicial rebuke of executive overreach in immigration enforcement. As detailed in the official court memorandum, Contreras reaffirmed Congress’s intent that asylum protections must apply equally to those who enter outside official ports.
Together, these rulings reinforce the principle that administrative convenience cannot override legal obligations—particularly when fundamental rights like asylum are at stake.
