Judge Jon S. Tigar of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said the government had failed to show that the president's policy was "a lawful exercise of the executive authority."
US Department of Justice lawyers had asked Tigar to suspend his interim injunction, which was issued on November 19, while the appeal was pending.
However, Tigar denied this and argued that the government had not convinced him that asylum seekers with legitimate claims would not suffer "significant harm" from the new policy.
The decision came after President Donald Trump resigned last week against Tigar and said he would ultimately prevail in the case before the Supreme Court.
Earlier this month, Trump signed a proclamation that prevented most migrants who had illegally crossed the southern border from applying for asylum.
The American Civil Liberties Union immediately sued the government on behalf of asylum support groups in California. Within ten days of the president's proclamation, Tigar issued an application for an injunction to the ACLU. Politics has since been in legal limbo.
"We are pleased that the District Court continues to recognize the damage that will be caused by the enactment of this illegal policy," ACLU senior lawyer Lee Learned said in a statement on Friday.
Following a statement, the Department of Justice asked CNN for a statement by Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman and Justice Department spokesman Steven Stafford after the injunction was issued, saying in part, "Our asylum system is broken, and it is being abused by tens of thousands of merciless claims, as the Supreme Court reiterated this summer, Congress has given the President full powers to restrict or even stop the entry of foreigners into that country. "
By the authority of the President he may not rewrite the immigration laws to one To impose conditions that Congress has expressly prohibited, "Tigar wrote, adding that asylum seekers would be" exposed to increased risk of violence and other border damage "if the government is allowed to come into force.
On behalf of the administration, Attorneys for Justice had argued that the court's ruling "undermines the domination of the president by imposing an immediate and temporary suspension of entry between the ports of entry to regulate the ongoing measures." increasing crisis of our immigration system. "