Court Partially Blocks Rules Limiting Work Permits for Asylum Seekers
Greenbelt, MD – Late Friday night, Judge Paula Xinis of the District Court of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction in CASA de Maryland v. Wolf (a lawsuit in which Oasis is a plaintiff organization), enjoining provisions of two new immigration rules that would limit asylum seekers’ ability to obtain work authorization. While this relief is unfortunately limited to members of CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP) and will not apply to Oasis clients at this time, it will still help hundreds, if not thousands, of asylum seekers who will be able to apply for work authorization before Judge Xinis decides the outcome of this lawsuit.
In addition, it is encouraging that the Court concluded that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in this case for many reasons, including because the government “never wrestled with the fundamental implications of deferring or denying advance work authorization” to asylum applicants, and because Defendant Chad Wolf likely lacked the authority to issue the rules in the first place, as he was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The Court also recognized that the new rules are causing irreparable harm to asylum seekers. The decision finds that the new rules will make it difficult for asylum seekers to afford basic necessities or hire legal counsel to aid them in pursuing asylum.
Unfortunately, because the ruling is limited at this time, Oasis' clients and asylum applicants across the country who are not members of CASA and ASAP will still be subject to all provisions of the new rules. This means that they:
Must wait almost seven months longer to submit their initial work permit application than if they had filed their work authorization application before August 25, 2020.
Are ineligible for work authorization if they filed their asylum application after August 25 and had been here for more than a year before filing, unless an immigration judge finds they qualify - a provision impacting more than 80% of Oasis clients.
Have no guarantee as to how long it will take the government to process their work authorization application, unless it was filed before August 21.
Responding to the ruling, Oasis Legal Program Director, Rachel Kafele, said, "We are very encouraged that the Court recognizes that these cruel and counterproductive rules were illegally issued with complete disregard for the devastating impact they are having on asylum seekers. Nevertheless, we are disappointed that our clients, and vulnerable LGBTQ+ asylum seekers around the country, are left with no protection and must continue to live in poverty compounded by the damaging effects of the pandemic, natural disasters and ongoing economic devastation."
The immigrant rights organizations that brought the case in addition to Oasis Legal Services are CASA, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), Centro Legal de la Raza and Pangea Legal Services. The case was filed by the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), ASAP and the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. The lawsuit challenges the legality of these new rules, including the legal authority of Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf to have issued them.
The Court’s opinion on the preliminary injunction is here.
Further legal analysis of the decision can be found here.
Published September 13, 2020