## Facts

- Congress, through the INA as amended by the Refugee Act, permits any noncitizen physically present in the United States or arriving at the border to apply for asylum regardless of status and whether entry occurred at a designated port of arrival.  
- DHS and DOJ issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) making noncitizens categorically ineligible for asylum if they entered along the southern border in violation of a presidential proclamation issued under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) or 1185(a).
- The President issued Proclamation 9822 suspending entry of noncitizens who crossed the southern border between ports of entry; combined with the IFR, this rendered such entrants automatically ineligible for asylum, leaving only withholding of removal and CAT protection.
- Nonprofit organizations providing legal and social services to asylum seekers sued, alleging the IFR conflicted with the INA and was promulgated without required notice and comment under the APA.
- The district court issued a nationwide TRO and then a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the IFR.
- The government took an interlocutory appeal from the preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the organizational plaintiffs had Article III standing and fell within the zone of interests of the INA and the challenged regulations.  
2. Whether the IFR’s categorical asylum ineligibility rule conflicted with 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) and was therefore unlawful under the APA.  
3. Whether, assuming statutory ambiguity, the IFR was a reasonable agency interpretation under Chevron and not arbitrary and capricious.  
4. Whether the IFR was reasonable in light of U.S. obligations reflected in the Refugee Convention/Protocol framework.  
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing a nationwide preliminary injunction (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, equities, and public interest).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the nationwide preliminary injunction.
- The court held the organizations plausibly alleged mission frustration and resource diversion traceable to the IFR and redressable by injunctive relief, satisfying standing; their claims fell within the INA’s zone of interests.
- The court concluded the IFR was likely unlawful because it conflicted with § 1158(a)(1), which permits asylum applications irrespective of manner of entry, including between ports of entry.
- The court ruled that even if § 1158(a)(1) were ambiguous, the IFR likely failed Chevron step two because it was an arbitrary and capricious interpretation that effectively nullified Congress’s asylum-application guarantee for a broad class.
- The court agreed that the government had not justified bypassing APA notice-and-comment requirements under the asserted good-cause or foreign-affairs exceptions, although the affirmance rested primarily on the substantive statutory conflict.
- The court upheld findings of irreparable harm to the organizations and to asylum seekers, and held the public interest and balance of equities favored enjoining enforcement nationwide.

## Legal Principles

- The INA guarantees that any noncitizen physically present in, or arriving to, the United States may apply for asylum regardless of status and regardless of whether entry occurred at a designated port of arrival.  
- Executive-branch authority to impose “additional limitations and conditions” on asylum eligibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(C) must be consistent with § 1158 and cannot override § 1158(a)(1)’s core assurance of access to the asylum application process.  
- Agency action that conflicts with unambiguous statutory text and structure is likely “not in accordance with law” under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).  
- Even where statutory ambiguity exists, an agency interpretation that effectively defeats Congress’s design, lacks adequate justification, or lacks a rational connection to the stated problem is likely arbitrary and capricious and fails Chevron step two.  
- APA notice-and-comment may be bypassed only if a valid statutory exception applies; generalized assertions of urgency or foreign-relations implications are insufficient where the rule primarily regulates domestic procedures.  
- A nationwide preliminary injunction may be appropriate where uniform relief is necessary to provide complete relief and where the public interest supports compliance with federal statutes governing asylum.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a rule that categorically denied asylum eligibility to noncitizens who entered between ports of entry, holding that the challengers were likely to succeed because the rule conflicted with the INA’s asylum-application guarantee and was likely unlawful under administrative-law standards.


East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 950 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2020)