Jesus Ramirez v. Linda Dougherty
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5606
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jesus Ramirez, a Salvadoran who entered the U.S. in May 1999 without inspection or admission, was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 2001 and has maintained it since.
- In 2012 Ramirez married U.S. citizen Barbara Lopez; Lopez’s I-130 was approved and Ramirez filed an I-485 to adjust to lawful permanent resident status.
- USCIS denied the I-485, reasoning Ramirez had not been "inspected and admitted or paroled" as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), and that TPS does not satisfy that admission requirement.
- Ramirez sued under the APA; the district court granted summary judgment to Ramirez, holding 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4) means TPS recipients are "considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant" for purposes of § 1255.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that § 1254a(f)(4) unambiguously treats TPS recipients as having been "inspected and admitted" for adjustment-of-status purposes and remanding to USCIS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1254a(f)(4) (TPS statute) allows a TPS recipient to meet § 1255(a)'s “inspected and admitted or paroled” requirement for adjustment of status | Ramirez: § 1254a(f)(4) explicitly makes TPS holders "considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant" for § 1255 purposes, which satisfies the "inspected and admitted" requirement | Government: § 1255(a) plainly requires physical inspection and admission (port-of-entry or equivalent); TPS only prevents removal and should not override § 1255(a); at most TPS negates the § 1255(c)(2) unlawful-status bar | Held for Ramirez: § 1254a(f)(4) unambiguously treats TPS recipients as in lawful nonimmigrant status and thus as "inspected and admitted" for § 1255(a) adjustment purposes; USCIS denial was legally flawed |
| Whether agency interpretations of the TPS–adjustment interaction are entitled to Chevron or other deference | Ramirez: statutory text is clear so no deference needed | Government: agency precedent supports a narrower reading | Held: Court finds the statute unambiguous at Chevron step one; even if Chevron applied, the agency had no controlling, persuasive precedent warranting deference (Skidmore analysis applies to nonprecedential rulings) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for reviewing agency statutory interpretation)
- INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (textual interpretation principles)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (persuasive weight for agency rulings lacking Chevron force)
- Flores v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding § 1254a(f)(4) satisfies § 1255’s admission requirement)
- Serrano v. U.S. Attorney General, 655 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011) (contrary holding that § 1254a(f)(4) does not override § 1255(a)’s inspected-and-admitted requirement)
- Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642 (1974) (interpretation should consider statute’s purpose)