Judge in SF rebuffs Trump administration on restrictive asylum order

Honduran migrant and asylum seeker Carla sits outside the tent she shares with family members in the Benito Juarez temporary shelter on Friday, Nov. 30, 2018, in Tijuana, Mexico. The family said they planned to stay in the shelter despite poor conditions. Rains the day before in Tijuana brought flooding to sections of the shelter, which is located in a soccer complex. Officials hope to re-locate at least 3,000 of the migrants, many from the migrant caravan, to a new shelter on the eastern side of the city. less Honduran migrant and asylum seeker Carla sits outside the tent she shares with family members in the Benito Juarez temporary shelter on Friday, Nov. 30, 2018, in Tijuana, Mexico. The family said they planned to ... more Photo: Mario Tama / Getty Images Photo: Mario Tama / Getty Images Image 1 of / 9 Caption Close Judge in SF rebuffs Trump administration on restrictive asylum order 1 / 9 Back to Gallery

A federal judge on Friday rejected the Trump administration’s request to reinstate the president’s ban on political asylum for thousands of immigrants at the Mexican border, citing the same reason he gave for blocking the ban last week — that it violates a federal law passed decades ago.

Justice Department lawyers “have not shown even serious questions that the rule (against asylum) is, in fact, legal,” said U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of San Francisco. He rejected the department’s attempt to suspend the nationwide temporary restraining order he issued Nov. 19 halting enforcement of the ban.

The Justice Department declined to comment. Its lawyers told Tigar on Monday they would immediately challenge his order in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if he did not suspend it within two days. They have not yet filed any such appeal. If unsuccessful, they could turn to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorney Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued on behalf of organizations supporting asylum-seekers and refugees, said the groups were pleased that Tigar “continues to recognize the harm that will occur if this illegal policy goes into effect.”

Asylum laws allow immigrants to remain in the U.S., seek work permits and apply for citizenship if they can show a “well-founded fear of persecution” in their homeland for reasons such as race, religion, political views, or, under recent rulings, sexual orientation.

President Trump issued a proclamation Nov. 9, followed by rules from the Justice Department, prohibiting undocumented immigrants from seeking asylum if they enter the U.S. illegally from Mexico, without presenting themselves at a designated port of entry.

The ports are a limited number of official sites where immigrants currently face waits of a month or more to apply for asylum. In addition, according to the ACLU, ports of entry are not allowing minors to enter if they are not accompanied by adults, so Trump’s order would make them ineligible for asylum.

The Trump administration said the new rules would encourage immigrants to enter legally while the administration negotiates with Mexico on a haven for migrants from Central America. But Tigar said in his Nov. 19 ruling that the government’s edict was contrary to long-standing federal law, which says any foreigner “who is physically present in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of entry) ... may apply for asylum.” The law was passed in its current form in 1996, and an earlier version was enacted in 1980.

In seeking a stay of Tigar’s ruling, Justice Department lawyers did not mention the 1996 law, and instead argued that the ruling “jeopardizes important national interests” and interferes with the government’s plan to “address a major crisis” at the border. They said the judge should have deferred to the president’s authority over immigration and national security.

But Tigar said Friday the government lawyers “still have not shown that the rule is a lawful exercise of executive branch authority.” Despite the administration’s claim that its rules would promote an orderly asylum process at the ports of entry, he said, the evidence shows that immigration officers “have been actively deterring asylum-seekers from ports of entry.”

And while the government cannot show it will be harmed by following the law, Tigar said, it is failing to address “the significant harms that will be suffered by asylum-seekers with legitimate claims and the organizations that assist them” if the ban is enforced.

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @BobEgelko