(DailyChive.com) – A federal judge’s striking down of key asylum restrictions enacted under President Biden throws America’s border policies into further chaos as debates over illegal immigration intensify.
At a Glance
- U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled that Biden-era asylum restrictions violate federal immigration law
- The rule required migrants to schedule port-of-entry appointments to maintain asylum eligibility
- The judge found the requirements incompatible with the Immigration and Nationality Act
- The ruling comes as a separate case forces the Trump administration to return a deported Venezuelan asylum seeker
- Government requests to stay both judicial decisions were denied
Biden-Era Asylum Restrictions Deemed Unlawful
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras struck down a controversial asylum rule on May 9, determining that immigration restrictions implemented during the Biden administration violate federal law. The rule had required illegal immigrants to schedule appointments at ports of entry to request asylum, with few exceptions. Additionally, it mandated that illegal immigrants inform border officers of any concerns upon removal and reduced the time for asylum seekers to consult with attorneys from 24 hours to just four hours while in U.S. custody.
Judge Contreras specifically ruled that most components of the restriction violate both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. In his decision, he emphasized that Congress intended for asylum to be available to noncitizens entering the United States outside of official ports of entry, making the Biden administration’s restrictive approach incompatible with existing law. The government’s attempts to defend these changes failed to provide sufficient evidence that they complied with federal administrative requirements.
“A U.S. District Judge, Rudolph Contreras, ruled on May 9, 2025, that an immigration rule affecting illegal immigrants seeking asylum, finalized under former President Joe Biden, violates federal law.”
Despite the significant legal development, Contreras noted that his ruling might not substantially impact current border practices due to decreased border encounters and previous policy changes. The government’s motion to stay the decision was denied, with Contreras stating that the effects of his ruling were unlikely to cause major disruptions to current operations. He has ordered the government to rescind removal orders for those who specifically challenged these standards.
Trump Administration Ordered to Return Deported Venezuelan
In a separate but related development, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher has refused to change her order requiring the Trump administration to return a 20-year-old Venezuelan asylum seeker who was deported to El Salvador. The Trump appointee rejected the government’s request to amend her ruling in the case of Daniel Lozano-Camargo, instead granting a 48-hour pause to allow the government to appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the appeal is declined, Judge Gallagher will establish a timeline for Lozano-Camargo’s return to the United States.
“strikes the right balance between giving the government the ability”
Gallagher determined that Lozano-Camargo’s deportation violated a 2024 settlement with the Department of Homeland Security that protected young asylum seekers from deportation until their cases were properly heard. The judge characterized the deportation as a “breach of contract” as his asylum case was never adjudicated. While the Trump administration argued that Lozano-Camargo was eligible for removal due to a drug conviction, Gallagher emphasized that her decision focused on ensuring due process rights, not predetermining the eventual outcome of his asylum request.
Judicial Reasoning and Broader Implications
Both judicial decisions underscore the ongoing legal battles over immigration enforcement in the United States. Judge Gallagher specifically noted she was “measuring utility using the wrong yardstick” in rejecting government arguments against returning the deported asylum seeker. She emphasized that the settlement agreement “requires him to be here and have his hearing” before any deportation action could be taken. The Trump administration’s appeal to the 4th Circuit was due by Thursday afternoon.
These rulings come at a time of intense national debate over border security and immigration policy. Judge Contreras’ decision to invalidate key portions of the Biden-era asylum restrictions highlights the legal constraints facing administrations seeking to address the border situation through executive action. By determining that Congress intended asylum to be available regardless of entry method, the courts have reaffirmed longstanding interpretations of U.S. immigration law that limit executive authority to restrict asylum eligibility based solely on manner of entry.
Copyright 2025, DailyChive.com
