Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 593 U.S. ___ (2021)
Sanchez, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1997 and obtained Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 2001. TPS allows foreign nationals from countries designated by the government as having unusually bad or dangerous conditions to temporarily live and work in the U.S. In 2014, Sanchez unsuccessfully applied under 8 U.S.C. 1255 to obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. Section 1255 provides a way for a “nonimmigrant”—a foreign national lawfully present in this country on a temporary basis—to obtain adjustment of status to LPR. The Third Circuit agreed that Sanchez’s unlawful entry precluded his eligibility for LPR status under section 1255, notwithstanding his TPS.
A unanimous Supreme Court affirmed. Section 1255 provides that eligibility for LPR status generally requires an “admission,” the lawful entry of the alien into the U.S. after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. Sanchez did not enter lawfully and his TPS does not eliminate the effect of that unlawful entry. Section 1254a(f)(4) provides that a TPS recipient who applies for permanent residency will be treated as having nonimmigrant status, the status traditionally and generally needed to invoke the section 1255 LPR process, but that provision does not address 1255’s separate admission requirement. Lawful status and admission are distinct concepts and establishing the former does not establish the latter. There are immigration categories in which individuals have nonimmigrant status without admission, so when Congress confers nonimmigrant status for purposes of 1255, but says nothing about admission, the Court has no basis for finding an unlawful entrant eligible to become an LPR.
A Temporary Protected Status recipient who entered the United States unlawfully is not eligible under section 1255 for Lawful Permanent Resident status based on his TPS.
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
SANCHEZ et ux. v. MAYORKAS, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit
No. 20–315. Argued April 19, 2021—Decided June 7, 2021
Petitioner Jose Santos Sanchez is a citizen of El Salvador who challenges the denial of his application to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States. Sanchez entered the United States unlawfully in 1997. In 2001, the Government granted him Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The TPS program allows foreign nationals of a country designated by the Government as having unusually bad or dangerous conditions to live and work in the United States while the conditions last. See §1254a. In 2014, Sanchez applied under §1255 of the immigration laws to obtain LPR status. Section 1255 provides a way for a “nonimmigrant”—a foreign national lawfully present in this country on a temporary basis—to obtain an “[a]djustment of status” to LPR. 8 U. S. C. §1255. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services determined Sanchez ineligible for LPR status because he entered the United States unlawfully. Sanchez successfully challenged that decision before the District Court, which reasoned that Sanchez’s TPS required treating him as if he had been lawfully admitted to the country for purposes of his LPR application. The Third Circuit reversed, finding Sanchez’s unlawful entry into the country precluded his eligibility for LPR status under §1255, notwithstanding his TPS.
Held: A TPS recipient who entered the United States unlawfully is not eligible under §1255 for LPR status merely by dint of his TPS. Section 1255 provides that eligibility for LPR status generally requires an “admission” into the country— defined to mean “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” §1101(a)(13)(A). Sanchez did not enter lawfully. And his TPS does not eliminate the effect of that unlawful entry. Section 1254a(f)(4) provides that a TPS recipient who applies for permanent residency will be treated as having nonimmigrant status—the status traditionally and generally needed to invoke the LPR process under §1255. But that provision does not aid the TPS recipient in meeting §1255’s separate admission requirement. Lawful status and admission are distinct concepts in immigration law, and establishing the former does not establish the latter. Sanchez resists this conclusion, arguing that the statute’s directive that a TPS recipient “shall be considered . . . as a nonimmigrant” for purposes of §1255 means he must also be considered as admitted. But the immigration laws nowhere state that admission is a prerequisite of nonimmigrant status. So there is no reason to interpret the TPS provision’s conferral of nonimmigrant status as including a conferral of admission. In fact, contrary to Sanchez’s position, there are immigration categories in which individuals have nonimmigrant status without admission. See, e.g., §§1101(a)(10), 1101(a)(15)(U), 1182(d)(14). Thus, when Congress confers nonimmigrant status for purposes of §1255, but says nothing about admission, the Court has no basis for ruling an unlawful entrant eligible to become an LPR. Pp. 4–9.
967 F.3d 242, affirmed.
Kagan, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 13, 2020) |
Corrected appendix to the petition (submitted February 18, 2021). |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 13, 2020 to November 12, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 12, 2020. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 12, 2020 to December 9, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 9, 2020. |
Brief for the Respondents filed. |
Waiver of the 14-day waiting period under 15.5 filed by petitioner. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021. |
Petition GRANTED. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Jose Santos Sanchez, et al. |
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Jose Santos Sanchez, et al. |
Brief of petitioners Jose Santos Sanchez, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of National Immigration Litigation Alliance, American Civil Liberties Union, and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Harvard TPS Coalition filed. |
Brief amici curiae of American Immigration Lawyers Association, et al. filed. |
Amicus brief of Service Employees International Union, et al. not accepted for filing. (March 03, 2021 - certificate of compliance to be corrected). |
Brief amici curiae of Service Employees International Union and Other Labor Unions filed. (March 23, 2021) |
Brief amici curiae of 22 Cities and Counties filed. |
Brief amici curiae of District of Columbia, et al. filed. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED. |
Brief amici curiae of Professors Alan Morrison and Brian Wolfman filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Oxfam America filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Immigration Law Professors filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Human Rights Watch and Alianza Americas filed. |
Corrected certificate of service for amicus curiae Harvard TPS Coalition filed. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 19, 2021. |
Record received from the U.S.D.C. 3rd Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer, with the exception of confidential documents that been electronically filed. |
Record requested. |
Brief of respondents Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. filed. |
CIRCULATED |
Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed. (Distributed) |
Reply of petitioner Jose Santos Sanchez, et ux. filed. (Distributed) |
Reply of Jose Santos Sanchez, et ux. submitted. |
Argued. For petitioners: Amy M. Saharia, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Michael R. Huston, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. |
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |