Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶127
It is difficult to credit this account. Setting aside the “arrives in” clause, both §§1225(b) and 1158(a)(1) already make abundantly clear that arriving noncitizens subject to expedited removal may still apply for asylum. Section 1225(b), as the majority acknowledges, ante, at 3–4, sets out the detailed expedited-removal process, which specifies that if a noncitizen “indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution” during “screening” for expedited removal, the officer must “refer the alien for an interview by an asylum officer.” §§1225(b)(1)(B)(i)–(ii). Section 1158(a), in turn, cross-references the expedited-removal provision, stating that any eligible noncitizen “may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.” Even absent the “arrives in” clause, these statutes could…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.