(D.D.C. 1:25-cv-00791)
E.Q. v. DHS challenges the Trump Administration’s new Mandatory Bars Rule, which imposes additional barriers to protection for people fleeing persecution and torture in their home countries.
The new Mandatory Bars Rule, which went into effect on January 17, 2025, significantly undermines the integrity of the U.S. asylum system by imposing additional barriers to protection for people fleeing persecution and torture in their home countries. This rule requires asylum officers to conduct initial fear screenings to assess whether individuals are subject to any of five mandatory bars that would render them ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal.
Previously, due to the legally and factually complex nature of such determinations, these mandatory bars were only considered during a full merits hearing before an immigration judge. At this initial fear screening stage, noncitizens are typically detained, have limited access to relevant evidence, and are usually unrepresented by counsel.
NIJC joined the AMICA Center for Immigrant Rights, the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (“CGRS”) and Human Rights First, along with pro bono counsel Crowell & Moring to represent organizational plaintiffs the Amica Center, the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project (“FIRRP”), and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (“RAICES”) in the case.
The Plaintiffs
The lawsuit’s named plaintiff, E.Q., was barred from asylum despite having fled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. He received a credible fear interview at the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona. At the interview, he testified that he fled Afghanistan after being targeted and threatened by the Taliban based on allegations that he was “an American spy.”
E.Q. then received a negative credible fear determination based on a finding that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant may be subject to a bar(s) to asylum or withholding of removal.” This conclusion was reached because of E.Q.’s employment at a vehicle repair shop that members of the Taliban had occasionally visited. Under the Mandatory Bars Rule, E.Q. had no recourse to defend himself against the idea that fixing vehicles at his job constituted “material support” for the group that had threatened him.