Asylum before crossing
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
In brief
The Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling: under the INA, officers need not inspect a noncitizen still in Mexico or allow that person to apply for asylum before the person crosses the border.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · June 25, 2026 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- The Court held 6–3 that a noncitizen who is stopped while still in Mexico has not “arrived in the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- Who it affects
- This ruling means the INA does not require immigration officers to inspect (screen) a person stopped in Mexico or allow that person to apply for asylum, protection from persecution, before crossing the border.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
As a result, the Act does not require immigration officers to inspect that person or allow the person to apply for asylum unless the person has actually crossed the border; the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
It concerns how immigration law treats people seeking entry while they remain on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Question presented
Does a noncitizen who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border “arrive[] in the United States” within the meaning of Immigration and Nationality Act?
What the Court decided
Holding
An alien standing in Mexico does not “arriv[e] in the United States” by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien “arrives in the United States” only when he crosses the border. The INA thus neither entitles an alien standing in Mexico to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him. 138 F. 4th 1102, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
From the opinions
“Since 1917, Congress has required immigration officers to inspect noncitizens who arrive at ports of entry to determine whether they may enter the United States.”
What's next
The case returns to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings after the Supreme Court sent it back (remanded). Under the ruling, immigration officers are not required by the INA to inspect someone still in Mexico or allow that person to apply for asylum.
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
Case data updated: title, summary
New analysis added
Opinion added: Opinion of the Court - A
More questions
- What did Mullin v. Al Otro Lado decide?
- The Court decided that a noncitizen still in Mexico has not “arrived in the United States” under the INA. It overturned the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back.
- How does the ruling affect inspection at the border?
- The INA does not require officers to inspect a noncitizen stopped in Mexico. That duty applies only after the person crosses the border.
- What does the ruling say about asylum applications from Mexico?
- The INA does not require officers to allow a person still in Mexico to apply for asylum. The Court said that person gains this statutory right only after crossing the border.
- What happens next for Al Otro Lado?
- The case returns to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings after the Supreme Court overturned its ruling and sent the case back (remanded).
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.