Opinion ID: 4546294
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Safe Option

Text: Consistent with the “core regulatory purpose” of asylum to “protect [refugees] with nowhere else to turn,” Matter of B- R-, 26 I. & N. Dec at 122, the Rule must ensure some degree of safety for aliens barred from asylum. Quoting from the agencies’ analysis of, and justification for, the Rule, the government argues in its brief that “applicants covered by the EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT V. BARR 37 bar do ‘have [an] alternative country where they can escape persecution or torture.’” 1 Gov’t Br. 16 (quoting 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,840); see also 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,840 (characterizing aliens subject to the Rule as “aliens without a genuine need for asylum”). The government contends that Mexico offers a “feasible alternative” to relief in the United States. 1 Gov’t Br. 39–41. At oral argument, the government stated that the Rule is “consistent with the aim and thrust of those other two bars,” which “set out situations where somebody has such a good circumstance or . . . place to live, that they categorically do not need asylum from this country.” The government writes further in its brief, “[A]s even the district court’s review shows, Mexico has a robust refugeeprotection system, which is improving in conjunction with guidance from international partners.” 1 Gov’t Br. 40. (citing E. Bay I, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 952–54). The government misrepresents both the record and the district court’s opinion. In the pages of its opinion cited by the government, the district court described and analyzed the record: The statistics regarding the number of claims submitted in Mexico contradict the government’s suggestion that Mexico provides an adequate alternative. . . . [T]he administrative record fails to support the conclusion that asylum in Mexico is a “feasible alternative.” . . . [N]owhere in the Rule do the agencies find that Mexico “in compliance with the relevant international instruments governing 38 EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT V. BARR consideration of refugee claims.” Nor does the government cite any finding in the Rule that Mexico’s “domestic law and procedures regarding such relief are robust and capable of handling claims made by Central American aliens in transit to the United States.” . . . With limited exceptions that are at best unresponsive to the question, the cited evidence consists simply of an unbroken succession of humanitarian organizations explaining why the government’s contention is ungrounded in reality. First, the government cites a report from the international organization, Médecins Sans Frontières, Forced to Flee Central America’s Northern Triangle: A Neglected Crisis (May 2017). AR 286–317. The report found that, during transit through Mexico, “68.3 percent of people from the [Northern Triangle] reported that they were victims of violence,” and that “31.4 percent of women and 17.2 percent of men had been sexually abused.” AR 296–97. . . . Second, an April 2019 factsheet from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) lists “strong obstacles to accessing the asylum procedure” in Mexico[.] . . . AR 534. . . . The UNHCR also observed that . . . “[w]omen and girls in particular are at risk of sexual and gender- based violence. Id. . . . EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT V. BARR 39 Third, the government cites to the UNHCR’s July 2018 review of Mexico’s refugee process. AR 638–57. The report notes two positive developments in response to a prior round of recommendations, AR 639, but documents a host of additional problems. . . . [T]he UNHCR highlighted ongoing problems in the areas of (1) “[s]exual and gender-based violence against migrants, asylum-seekers, and refugees”; (2) “[d]etention of migrants and asylum seekers, particularly children and other vulnerable persons”; and (3) “[a]ccess to economic, social and cultural rights for asylum-seekers and refugees.” AR 640–42. Fourth, the government relies on a November 2018 factsheet from Human Rights First, which asks: “Is Mexico Safe for Refugees and Asylum Seekers?” AR 702. Answering in the negative, the factsheet explains that “many refugees face deadly dangers in Mexico. For many, the country is not at all safe.” Id. (emphasis in original). Human Rights First notes that “refugees and migrants face acute risks of kidnapping, disappearance, sexual assault, trafficking, and other grave harms in Mexico[.]” . . . Fifth, the government cites to a 2018 report from Amnesty International entitled “Overlooked, Under-Protected: Mexico’s Deadly Refoulement of Central Americans Seeking Asylum.” AR 704–27. As its title 40 EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT V. BARR suggests, the report concluded that “the Mexican government is routinely failing in its obligations under international law to protect those who are in need of international protection[.] . . . Sixth, the government points to a New York Times article, ‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and Trans Migrants (July 11, 2018). AR 756–66. The article notes that “[t]rans women in particular encounter persistent abuse and harassment in Mexico at the hands of drug traffickers, rogue immigration agents and other migrants.” AR 758. . . . Additional portions of the administrative record not cited by the government bolster the already overwhelming evidence on this point. . . . In sum, the bulk of the administrative record consists of human rights organizations documenting in exhaustive detail the ways in which those seeking asylum in Mexico are
parties and government officials, (2) denied their rights under Mexican and international law, and (3) wrongly returned to countries from which they fled persecution. Yet, even though this mountain of evidence points one EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT V. BARR 41 way, the agencies went the other—with no explanation. E. Bay I, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 952–55 (emphases in original). An agency must “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. “Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Id. In promulgating the Rule, the agencies “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.” Id. Further, the agencies’ conclusion that aliens barred by the Rule have a safe alternative in Mexico “runs counter to the evidence before the agency.” Id.