A case was pending in the Supreme Court that The Court ruled on Thursday for the Trump administration in a key immigration case that a federal statute restricting the right of an asylum claimant to challenge a ruling that he lacks a legitimate fear of discrimination from his home country did not contradict the Constitution.

This ruling stands legitimate for those people who are seeking asylum in the country, but they fail the screening test and hence, need to be deported back to their country immediately.

But the case that is pending served to be a little different than the respondent didn’t ask to be released rather he asked for the department to provide for him another opportunity for applying for a relief.

The case that is under consideration is that of a Sri Lankan individual. The Srilankan man, Thuraissigiam was caught within 25 yards of the border. The man was caught back in 2017 and was out into the case of deporting back to his home country where he had fled from.

Upon further investigation, it was found that the man had fled to protect his life. He was afraid because he had been abducted in his country and beaten severely by a group of individuals that he does not know neither does he know the reason behind it.

Hence, when the officer evaluated his case, he did not think that the reason for asking for asylum in The US was legit and hence signed the orders of sending him back. This in turn led the Srilankan man to file a petition against unlawful detention. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the decision, finding that the statute was unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court overturned the decision in Thursday’s ruling.

The Supreme Court passed the decision that said that the case of this man should be dealt with similarly as does of the people that have been taken in custody as they enter the country.

Trump’s government is attempting to extend the jurisdiction so that immigrants convicted somewhere in the U.S. for up to two years after they came here could be easily deported. The federal; court of Appeal had passed the decisions to reverse the judgment that demanded the extended program to be blocked.