Appeals Court Says Fleeing Violence is Not a Valid Asylum Claim for the United States

This week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Hercules v. Garland, which reaffirms that fleeing violence is not a valid claim for asylum in the United States. Jose Alberto Hercules, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, was seeking to gain asylum to prevent deportation over claims that he was fleeing violence and would be targeted by gangs if he was deported. Hercules thought he would be eligible for asylum because he claimed that he would be targeted by gangs in El Salvador since he’d be perceived as rich.

Appeals Court: Fleeing Violence is Not a Valid Claim for Asylum in U.S. https://t.co/WeQm1HqWmE via @BreitbartNews @JxhnBxnder

— FAIR (@FAIRImmigration) June 11, 2021

The appeals court ruled that none of Hercules’ claims for asylum were valid. Fox News host Tucker Carlson covered this case, labeling El Salvador as safer than cities like Chicago, Illinois, Baltimore, Maryland, and St. Louis. Carlson said: “In 2018, Baltimore had 51 murders per 100,000 residents. That same year, San Salvador had a smaller number — 50.3 murders per 100,000 residents. San Salvador was long the most dangerous city in the hemisphere. Baltimore also had a higher murder rate than Guatemala, Honduras, and Afghanistan…So why aren’t residents in Baltimore applying for asylum in Central America? Thanks to good leadership, El Salvador is getting safer. Meanwhile, thanks to people like Kamala Harris, our country is becoming far more dangerous…”

The Department of Justice reports that just under 14% of foreign nationals claim credible fear to warrant asylum in America.

The Hercules case being dismissed follows the Sanchez v. Mayorkas case from earlier this week. On Monday, we reported how the Supreme Court ruled, “9-0 against non-citizens who entered the U.S. without authorization in the 1990s, were allowed to remain in the country for humanitarian reasons under the “temporary protected status” program, and now seek green cards under the “adjustment of status” process.”

In plain English: A married couple entered the U.S. from El Salvador. They’re protected from deportation under a program in which the U.S. doesn’t send people back to nations in crisis. The couple applied to become lawful permanent U.S. residents. SCOTUS said they don’t qualify.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 7, 2021

The SCOTUS has built up and strengthened what some see as an anti-immigration, nationalistic narrative over their rulings the past few weeks. CNN seemed to be angered over the recent SCOTUS ruling on the Sanchez v. Mayorkas case, saying, “Today’s decision is not just a setback for those immigrants currently in Temporary Protected Status who did not enter the United States lawfully; it also reinforces the barriers that Dreamers would face until and unless Congress provides a statutory path to some kind of permanent lawful status, said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. The Executive Branch may have some authority to confer forms of temporary legal status on those who crossed the border without permission, but the Supreme Court today reinforced, however indirectly, that only Congress can provide a permanent answer,” he added.” Others may just see it as the SCOTUS upholding the constitution since their recent ruling was 9-0.

The Supreme Court has blocked non-citizens who are in the US under a temporary status program from applying for green cards if they entered unlawfully https://t.co/nHYu5tOvOs

— CNN (@CNN) June 7, 2021

Stay tuned to Media Right News for any updates concerning SCOTUS rulings and immigration.