-
Al Otro Lado and Haitian Bridge Alliance v. Noem
Case Status:ClosedPlaintiffs brought this lawsuit in July 2023 to challenge the Biden administration’s policy and widespread practice of requiring asylum seekers at the southwest border to make an advance appointment via the government’s CBP One smartphone app in order to seek asylum at a port of entry. In January 2025, the Trump administration removed CBP One’s scheduling functionality and cancelled all pending CBP One appointments. In September 2025, the district court and the Ninth Circuit dismissed the pending cases.
Court and Case No.:U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-01367-AGS-BLM
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 23-3396
What is the government doing and why are we challenging it?
This lawsuit challenges the Biden administration’s policy and widespread practice of requiring asylum seekers at the southwest border to make an advance appointment via the government’s CBP One smartphone app in order to seek asylum at a port of entry (POE).
On May 12, 2023, the Biden administration promulgated a rule that established a sweeping ban on asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. As a practical matter, most asylum seekers at the southern border can avoid the ban only by scheduling a CBP One appointment at a POE. Though the rule was recently struck down as unlawful, it remains in effect as that case makes its way through the courts. The government has given no indication that it will change its policy of turning back asylum seekers who do not have a CBP One appointment, regardless of whether the rule remains in effect.
The lawsuit charges that, since its inception, the CBP One app has been inaccessible to the most vulnerable and marginalized people seeking safety at the U.S.-Mexico border. Only those who are literate in one of the few languages the app supports and have a relatively new smartphone, a reliable internet connection, and electricity are able to successfully navigate the app.
Under the government’s new turnback policy, individuals who cannot secure a CBP One appointment are unlawfully turned away and denied the opportunity to access the U.S. asylum process altogether, leaving them to languish in encampments and shelters in Mexican border cities where their racial and migrant identities leave them vulnerable to predation and violence.
This lawsuit argues that the government’s policy of turning back asylum seekers who do not have a CBP One appointment violates U.S. law, the government’s own guidance, asylum seekers’ due process rights, and the United States’ obligations under international law, which prohibit the government from returning refugees to countries where they face persecution or torture.
What is at stake?
This lawsuit seeks to protect asylum seekers who are in Mexico and wish to present at a POE to seek asylum, but have not obtained a CBP One appointment. The plaintiffs include 10 individual asylum seekers who have been turned away and harmed by the new turnback policy, and the nonprofit legal organizations Al Otro Lado and Haitian Bridge Alliance, which serve asylum seekers and other migrants on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.
The lawsuit documents numerous cases in which asylum seekers unable to obtain CBP One appointments requested asylum at a port of entry, only to be turned away by border officers. The plaintiffs include parents of small children who are now languishing in shelters or informal encampments, afraid to even venture outside given the dangers that await migrants in Mexican border towns. Several of the plaintiffs are Mexican nationals who have been left stranded in the very country they are desperately trying to flee. As they wait for the CBP One app to work and an appointment to materialize, they fear for their lives.
What’s the status of this case?
CGRS and our co-counsel filed the legal challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 27, 2023. We are asking the court to declare the government’s new turnback policy illegal and order the government to stop turning away asylum seekers at or near POEs.
On October 13, 2023, Judge Schopler denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit were held on May 13, 2024.
The government defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 13, 2023. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 12, 2024. The government filed a reply on February 12, 2024. On September 30, 2024, Judge Schopler issued an order largely denying defendants' motion to dismiss.
On June 6, 2024, the district court requested supplemental briefing regarding the impact of the Presidential Proclamation, Securing the Border, and related guidance. On June 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a brief arguing that the Presidential Proclamation and the DHS and DOJ’s June 7, 2024, interim final rule (new measures that restrict asylum eligibility when the Proclamation is in effect) do not impede Plaintiffs from moving forward with their claims. Plaintiffs also filed a notice with the Ninth Circuit regarding these new measures. CGRS and partner organizations are challenging the new restrictions on asylum eligibility in separate litigation.
On January 20, 2025, the incoming Trump Administration removed the scheduling functionality of the CBP One app for migrants and cancelled all CBP One appointments. The parties jointly filed motions for dismissal in both the Ninth Circuit and the district court. On September 5, 2025, the district court granted the motion, dismissing the case effective September 4, 2025. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal on September 19, 2025. CGRS and partner organizations continue to fight restrictive border measures in related cases including Al Otro Lado v. Trump.
Who’s involved?
CGRS is co-counsel, along with the American Immigration Council, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Mayer Brown LLP, and Vinson & Elkins LLP.
How can you help?
- Take the #WelcomeWithDignity pledge and join our movement to defend the right to seek asylum. You can support CGRS’s vital work on cases like this one by making a donation.
Need more information?
- Contact Brianna Krong, Communications and Advocacy Manager, at krongbrianna@uclawsf.edu.
Resources for Advocates
- Attorneys representing clients who may be subject to the asylum ban can request assistance from CGRS through our Technical Assistance Library.
Press Releases
- Court Allows Legal Challenge to CBP One Turnback Policy to Proceed (October 1, 2024)
- Ninth Circuit Hears Argument in CBP One Turnbacks Case, One Year After Government Launches Ban (May 14, 2024)
- Court Allows Turnbacks of Asylum Seekers Without CBP One Appointments to Continue (October 13, 2023)
- Asylum Seekers Ask Court to Block Turnback Policy (August 10, 2023)
- Groups Sue Over Government Turnbacks of Asylum Seekers (July 27, 2023)
Select Media Coverage
- "San Diego judge lets most claims against Biden asylum app proceed," Daily Journal, October 3, 2024
- " Feds Can't Ditch Trimmed Asylum Seekers' Suit Over CBP App," Dorothy Atkins, Law360, October 1, 2024
- "Asylum-Seekers Slam Feds' Use Of 'Flawed' App At Border," Dorothy Atkins, Law360, January 19, 2024
- "Gobierno de EEUU, con luz verde para devolver migrantes que piden asilo sin cita previa en la herramienta CBP One," Jorge Cancino, Univision, October 15, 2023
- "Un juge fédéral rejette la demande visant à empêcher l’administration Biden de refouler les demandeurs d’asile à la frontière sans rendez-vous sur l’application CBP One," Rezo Nòdwès, October 14, 2023
- "La aplicación CBP One se mantiene por decisión de un juez, tras petición de prohibirla," El Tiempo Latino, October 13, 2023
- "Judge denies bid to prohibit US border officials from turning back asylum-seekers at land crossings," Elliot Spagat, Associated Press, October 13, 2023
Legal Documents
-
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, September 30, 2024
-
Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, July 22, 2024
-
Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority Concerning Motion to Dismiss - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, July 12, 2024
-
Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority Rule 28(j) - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, June 20, 2024
-
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, June 20, 2024
-
Defendants' Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, February 12, 2024
-
Plaintiffs' Reply Brief - U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, January 29, 2024
-
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, January 12, 2024
-
Respondent (Government)’s Answering Brief - U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, January 5, 2024
-
Amicus Brief of Human Rights First - U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, December 13, 2023
-
Amicus Brief of ACLU, ACLU of Southern California, and ACLU of Northern California - U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, December 13, 2023
-
Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief - U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, December 6, 2023
-
Defendants’ Memo In Support of their Motion to Dismiss - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, November 13, 2023
-
Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of their Motion for Provisional Class Certification - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, September 29, 2023
-
Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, September 29, 2023
-
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Provisional Class Certification - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, September 13, 2023
-
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, September 13, 2023
-
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, August 10, 2023
-
Declaration of Jenifer Wolf-Williams (H.O.M.E.) - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, August 9, 2023
-
Declaration of Nicole Elizabeth Ramos (Al Otro Lado) - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, August 9, 2023
-
Declaration of Jennifer Babaie (Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center) - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, August 9, 2023
-
Declaration of Erika Pinheiro (Al Otro Lado) - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, August 9, 2023
-
Declaration of Caitlyn Yates - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, August 9, 2023
-
Declaration of Kimiko Hirota (Women's Refugee Commission) - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, August 9, 2023
-
Declaration of Felicia Rangel-Samponaro (Sidewalk School for Asylum Seekers) - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, August 9, 2023
-
Declaration of Nicole Phillips (Haitian Bridge Alliance) - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, August 9, 2023
-
Declaration of Joanna Williams (Kino Border Initiative) - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, August 9, 2023
-
Complaint - U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, July 27, 2023