This is a long (88-page, single spaced) immigration opinion. The majority opinion is written by Judge Paez, and the dissent by Judge Bumatay. So you can probably accurately figure out which way it ends up.
For a very brief description of why the majority ends up where it does, I'll quote two paragraphs of that opinion. First, the opening paragraph of the opinion:
"Lester J. Garcia Morales (“Garcia Morales” or “Petitioner”), Sheyla Monroy Tay, and their three minor children (collectively, “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Guatemala, sought refuge in the United States after the same gang leader who murdered Garcia Morales’s sister threatened to kill them. Petitioners moved hours away from their home to escape the gang’s threats, but within two weeks, the gang found them, sent them a photo of their new front door, and again threatened to kill them. The police refused to help, offering to intervene only if they caught the gang leader in the act of murdering Garcia Morales. Out of fear for their lives, Petitioners fled Guatemala."
That paragraph accurately states the equities at issue here. As for the underlying doctrinal dispute, it's complicated, but here's the bottom line:
"We are guided by our decisions in East Bay I and East Bay II. The Rule effectively reimposes the restriction we invalidated in East Bay I. We reaffirm our holding that restricting asylum eligibility for noncitizens who enter between ports of entry impermissibly conflicts with § 1158(a) and the broader asylum statute. The agency therefore erred in concluding that Petitioners are ineligible for asylum pursuant to the Rule."
Judge Bumatay's dissent articulates the theme you would expect, and starts with "Once again, the Ninth Circuit fails to understand that the political branches—not judges—set asylum policy for our country." But, perhaps surprisingly, it also contains at least a facial expression of solicitude towards the petitioners, saying (in the midst of the dissent): "We can be sympathetic to the plight of Lester Garcia Morales and his family. We can be sympathetic to the countless other aliens seeking a better life in the United States. But our sympathy is no substitute for following the law."
One other interesting point. Judge Bumatay goes out of his way to note -- repeatedly --- that, unlike what one might perhaps expect, the underlying baseline rule at issue here was issued not under President Trump, but rather under President Biden. For example, here are the second and third paragraphs of that dissent:
"In 2022, the Biden Administration enacted the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (“CLP”) Rule to deal with the mounting crisis on the southwestern border. 88 Fed. Reg. 31314 (May 16, 2023) (codified at 8 C.F.R. § 208.33 and § 1208.33). Illegal entry into the country from Mexico was at “all-time high,” overwhelming the government’s ability to effectively manage and stem the illegal migration. See id. at 31314–16 (May 16, 2023). Instead of being able to quickly remove illegal aliens from the country, the government faced thousands of aliens seeking asylum— hammering immigration courts with mostly non-meritorious asylum applications. Id. at 31315. The result: “those with meritorious claims [had] to wait years for their claims to be granted, while individuals who are ultimately denied protection may spend years in the United States before being issued a final order of removal.” Id.
The CLP Rule tried to alleviate some of that pressure by encouraging illegal aliens to use orderly “pathways” into the United States or to seek asylum in other countries. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 31314, 31317. The CLP Rule established a “rebuttable presumption of ineligibility for asylum” for all aliens “who ente[red] the United States from Mexico at the southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders without documents sufficient for lawful admission.”"
Similarly, later on in the opinion, he repeats: "The Biden Administration sought to stem the exigency of significant crossings of illegal immigrants into the country. It enacted the “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule.”"
What's interesting about this -- to me, at least -- is that, typically, a core conservative talking point is that Biden did absolutely nothing to stem the passage of undocumented aliens, and that everything bad (from immigration policy to the deficit to inflation) is all his fault. You often see conservative judges reflecting that same sentiment. These comments are somewhat at odds with this overall message.
Of course, it makes sense for Judge Bumatay to make these points here, since one of his themes (right or wrong) is that liberal judges always side with the things that Biden did but oppose whatever Trump does, even when they're (allegedly) the same thing. Still, I suspect that the current administration would probably not include as part of its own messages: "Hey, on illegal immigration, I'm enacting the same beneficial policies that President Biden did."