Supreme Court: Immigrant who entered country illegally can't get a green card because of TPS program

[Dashinka 23,251]

Interesting ruling from SCOTUS today.

 

Supreme Court: Immigrant who entered country illegally can't get a green card because of TPS program

 

WASHINGTON – A unanimous Supreme Court curbed a 30-year-old immigration program for foreign nationals whose countries are ravaged by war or natural disaster, ruling its temporary protection from deportation doesn't guarantee a more permanent stay.

Some 400,000 people, most from El Salvador, live in the U.S. with Temporary Protected Status, which permits them to remain as long as the government determines they cannot safely return. At issue in the case was whether those immigrants could apply for lawful permanent residency, or green cards, if they entered the United States illegally.

Federal law requires immigrants seeking green cards to have been "inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States." A New Jersey couple from El Salvador who lived in the U.S. for two decades argued they met that mandate when they become TPS recipients. Both the Trump and Biden administrations disagreed.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-immigrant-entered-country-142252875.html

[Crazy Cat 39,267]

I guess they (the couple) interpreted the meaning of "Temporary" as something other than....temporary.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[Pinkrlion 2,607]

That has always been the law.  You have to enter legally to benefit from Green Card.  

[Suze1 366]

Another article on the ruling.....

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rules-against-immigrants-143446876.html

 

Supreme Court rules against immigrants with temporary status

MARK SHERMAN

Mon, June 7, 2021, 10:34 AM

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that thousands of people living in the U.S. for humanitarian reasons are ineligible to apply to become permanent residents.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that federal immigration law prohibits people who entered the country illegally and now have Temporary Protected Status from seeking “green cards” to remain in the country permanently.

 

The designation applies to people who come from countries ravaged by war or disaster. It protects them from deportation and allows them to work legally. There are 400,000 people from 12 countries with TPS status.

 

The outcome in a case involving a couple from El Salvador who have been in the U.S. since the 1990s turned on whether people who entered the country illegally and were given humanitarian protections were ever “admitted” into the United States under immigration law.

 

Kagan wrote that they were not. “The TPS program gives foreign nationals nonimmigrant status, but it does not admit them. So the conferral of TPS does not make an unlawful entrant...eligible" for a green card, she wrote.

 

The House of Representatives already has passed legislation that would make it possible for TPS recipients to become permanent residents, Kagan noted. The bill faces uncertain prospects in the Senate.

 

President Joe Biden has said he supports the change in the law. But his administration, like the Trump administration, argued that current immigration law doesn't permit people who entered the country illegally to apply for permanent residency.

....

[HRQX 4,145]

SCOTUS essentially had to resolve a circuit split (3 circuits saying TPS-recipients that entered unlawfully are not eligible to AOS vs 3 circuits saying TPS-recipients that entered unlawfully are eligible to AOS) : https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-315_q713.pdf "Compare Sanchez v. Secretary U. S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 967 F. 3d 242, 245 (CA3 2020) (case below) (holding that such a person cannot do so); Nolasco v. Crockett, 978 F. 3d 955, 959 (CA5 2020) (same); Serrano v. United States Atty. Gen., 655 F. 3d 1260, 1265–1266 (CA11 2011) (per curiam) (same), with Velasquez v. Barr, 979 F. 3d 572, 578 (CA8 2020) (holding that he can); Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F. 3d 954, 958 (CA9 2017) (same); Flores v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 718 F. 3d 548, 553–554 (CA6 2013)."

 

Now USCIS is expected to clarify if the decision will be applied retroactively, or if not, under which specific circumstances (i.e. filing date or case approval date). I personally know people here in California that already have their Green Cards based on the Ramirez v. Brown decision. My pending I-485 was also filed in 2017 based on that 9th Circuit decision:

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by HRQX

[Crazy Cat 39,267]

It is interesting, to me, that some courts said that being paroled into the US via AP was considered "legal entry"....but this decision says otherwise.

[HRQX 4,145]

4 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

that some courts said that being paroled into the US via AP was considered "legal entry"....but this decision says otherwise.

No, the SCOTUS case mainly focused on the following question: "Does the conferral of Temporary Protected Status under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a constitute an “admission” into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1255?"

 

Other than footnotes stating that parole entry does not qualify for the leniency in 8 U.S.C. § 1255(k), parole entry was not throughly discussed: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-315_q713.pdf "footnote 4: The Government notes that Sanchez was treated as “paroled” when he returned from an authorized trip abroad after obtaining TPS. See Brief for Respondents 15, n. 5. But Sanchez has never claimed that this treatment made him eligible to adjust to LPR status under §1255(a). That is probably because the argument could not have mattered: §1255(k) stands as an independent prohibition on his invoking the LPR process. See supra, at 2, n. 1. We express no view on whether a parole of the kind Sanchez received enables a TPS recipient to become an LPR absent any other bar in §1255."

Edited June 17, 2021 by HRQX