A U.S. appeals court has ruled that a controversial border policy, known as “metering,” violated federal law by turning away asylum-seekers once daily caps were met. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that immigration law obliges U.S. border agents to inspect all individuals arriving at designated crossings, even if they have not yet physically entered the country. This practice, initially introduced in 2016 and expanded by the Trump administration, was intended to manage an influx of migrants at U.S.-Mexico border points. However, the court found the policy unlawful, asserting that those turned away should have been processed upon their first arrival.
The Biden administration, which rescinded metering in 2021, argued that asylum rights begin only when a person physically sets foot in the U.S. The court rejected this, declaring that asylum-seekers standing at a border point should be considered as having “arrived” in the U.S., even if they hadn’t crossed the physical boundary.
This ruling not only underscores the illegality of the metering policy but also impacts a separate 2019 rule limiting asylum eligibility, stating that those turned away under metering should not face the rule’s restrictions. The decision marks a victory for advocacy groups like Al Otro Lado, which had long argued that the policy violated both immigration law and the constitutional rights of migrants seeking asylum at U.S. ports of entry.
Though metering was discontinued, this case seeks to ensure that future policies do not replicate its restrictive impact. The ruling also reflects a larger debate about how immigration laws are applied and interpreted at the U.S.-Mexico border.
