Immigration and Citizenship

Sanchez v. Mayorkas

In Sanchez v. Mayorkas, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Immigration and Nationality Act permits eligible individuals who have received Temporary Protected Status to adjust to lawful-permanent-resident status even though they were not inspected and admitted when they first arrived in the United States.

Case Summary

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows the federal government to grant Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to foreign nationals residing in the United States if it determines that those individuals came from countries to which they cannot safely return and satisfy several other criteria.  Those seeking TPS must undergo a rigorous application and review process.  If granted, TPS shields recipients from removal and authorizes them to work in the United States.

Under Section 1254a(f)(4) of the INA, TPS recipients are “considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant . . . for purposes of adjustment of status under section 1255.”  Section 1255, in turn, states that “[t]he status of an alien who was inspected and admitted . . . into the United States . . . may be adjusted . . . to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence,” provided certain criteria are satisfied.

The petitioners in this case, a married couple from El Salvador, initially entered the United States without lawful admission or inspection.  They later applied for and were granted TPS.  When they attempted to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents, however, the government denied their request on the ground that they had not been “inspected and admitted” as Section 1255 requires for such a status adjustment.  They sued, and although the federal district court ruled in their favor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that they were categorically ineligible for such an adjustment because they had not been “admitted” under Section 1255.  They asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and the Court agreed to do so.

CAC filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of Members of Congress in support of the petitioners.  First, our brief argues that the plain language of the INA permits eligible TPS recipients to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents, regardless of whether they were inspected and admitted when they first entered the United States.  This is because TPS recipients were necessarily “inspected and admitted” into the United States, as required by Section 1255, by virtue of undergoing the rigorous vetting process required to receive TPS.  Further, because Section 1254a(f)(4) stipulates that TPS recipients are “considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant . . . for purposes of adjustment of status under section 1255,” they should also be considered “admitted,” as “nonimmigrants” have typically been granted “admission to the United States” under the INA.

Second, our brief argues that this plain-text reading of the INA is consistent with Congress’s plan in passing the statute and is underscored by the fact that the alternative interpretation would produce absurd results.  Under the alternative interpretation, individuals like the petitioners in this case, who have been thoroughly vetted by the U.S. government and granted lawful nonimmigrant status as TPS recipients for purposes of adjusting their status, would have to leave the country and return to their country of origin, or to another country entirely, before returning to the United States for inspection and admission to be eligible to adjust to lawful-permanent-resident status.  The brief argues that that outcome cannot be squared with Congress’s plan in passing the INA, which was to protect certain individuals from having to leave the United States when it would be unsafe to do so.

Case Timeline

  • March 1, 2021

    CAC files amici curiae brief on behalf of Members of Congress

    Sup. Ct. Amici Br.
  • April 19, 2021

    The Supreme Court will hear oral argument

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Supreme Court

Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab

In Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab, the Supreme Court is considering whether a Trump administration policy authorizing the return of certain noncitizens to Mexico while they await adjudication of their asylum applications violates the Immigration...
Immigration and Citizenship
January 15, 2021

RELEASE: New Court Challenge Says Trump Anti-Asylum Rule “Unlawful, Unconstitutional, Invalid” 

WASHINGTON – Yesterday, the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC), together with co-counsel, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brian R. Frazelle
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Tahirih Justice Center v. Gaynor

Challenging the Trump Administration’s effort to dramatically restrict eligibility for asylum through a regulation that was approved by an illegally serving Acting Secretary of Homeland Security.
Immigration and Citizenship
November 14, 2020

RELEASE: Victory For DACA Recipients

WASHINGTON -- On news of the ruling in Batalla Vidal v. Wolf, Constitutional Accountability Center...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

New York v. Department of Homeland Security; Make the Road NY v. Cuccinelli

In New York v. Department of Homeland Security, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering the legality of an effort by the purported Acting Secretary of Homeland Security...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Make the Road New York v. Wolf

In Make the Road New York v. Wolf, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is considering a challenge to an effort by the purported Acting Secretary of Homeland Security to drastically expand...