Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶163

Instead, the most plausible explanation for this change is that Congress adopted the “arrives in” language in §1158(a)(1) to conform it to the newly reworked inspection mandate and expedited-removal procedures, both of which now refer to “arriving” noncitizens. See supra, at 27–29. The legislative history confirms this understanding. The Committee Report on IIRIRA stated that §1158(a)(1) continues to allow “any alien who is physically present in the United States or at the border of the United States, regardless of status, . . . to apply for asylum.” H. R. Rep. No. 104– 469, at 259. The Report evinced no intent by Congress to narrow the scope of §1158(a)(1) solely to those who cross the border, nor has any party pointed to any other evidence of such an intent. See id., at 173–176 (describing other changes to the asylum system with no mention of narrowing scope of §1158(a)(1)); id., at…

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