Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶145

Respondents’ construction also comports best with the history of both statutes. As the majority explains, before IIRIRA’s enactment, §1158(a)(1) covered noncitizens at the border who had not crossed over because it allowed noncitizens who were “physically present in the United States or at a land border or port of entry” to apply for asylum. Ante, at 10 (quoting §1158(a) (1994 ed.); emphasis deleted). In the majority’s view, Congress’s decision in IIRIRA to replace this “at a land border or port of entry” clause with the current “arrives in the United States” clause suggests that Congress intended to change the scope of the provision substantively, eliminating protections for those at the border. Ante, at 11 (internal quotation marks omitted).

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.