355 F. Supp. 3d 779
D. Me.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (Leymis V. and Sandra O.), citizens of El Salvador, entered the U.S. without inspection and admission and later received Temporary Protected Status (TPS) after disclosure of their unlawful entries.
- Both applied for family-based adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident (LPR); USCIS denied their adjustment applications, requesting evidence of lawful admission and concluding TPS does not constitute an "admission."
- Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking review of USCIS denials; parties agreed there are no material factual disputes and cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.
- Statutory tension: 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4) deems TPS beneficiaries "to be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant" for purposes of adjustment under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, while § 1255(a) requires an alien to have been "inspected and admitted" before adjustment.
- The court addressed whether a TPS grant satisfies § 1255(a)’s threshold "inspected and admitted" requirement and whether the agency’s contrary interpretation was lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a TPS grant satisfies § 1255(a)’s "inspected and admitted" requirement | § 1254a(f)(4) treats TPS beneficiaries as having lawful nonimmigrant status for § 1255 purposes, which implies inspection and admission | TPS and § 1255(a) are distinct; § 1254a(f)(4) does not expressly address the § 1255(a) threshold, so beneficiaries must have been separately inspected and admitted | Court held TPS satisfies § 1255(a); a grant of TPS is deemed an inspection and admission for adjustment purposes |
| Whether the statutory language is ambiguous and requires deference to agency interpretation | Text is clear; no Chevron deference necessary | Agency interpretation should be afforded deference or sustained | Court found the statutory text plain and unambiguous and reversed the agency as arbitrary and capricious |
| Whether earlier circuit decisions bind or control interpretation here | Relied on decisions finding TPS equates to admission (e.g., Ninth, Third Circuits) | Cited decisions (e.g., Eleventh Circuit) that read TPS as not satisfying initial inspection/admission requirement | Court followed precedents holding TPS constitutes admission and rejected contrary readings as unpersuasive |
| Whether legislative history is necessary to resolve the question | Textual reading controls; no need for legislative history | Legislative history could support narrower reading | Court declined to rely on legislative history because the statute's text is clear |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017) (held TPS grant implies inspection and admission for adjustment purposes)
- Flores v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 718 F.3d 548 (3d Cir. 2013) (concluded TPS can satisfy admission requirement for adjustment)
- Bonilla v. Johnson, 149 F. Supp. 3d 1135 (D. Minn. 2016) (district court held TPS constitutes admission for adjustment)
- Medina v. Beers, 65 F. Supp. 3d 419 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (analyzed nonimmigrant status under TPS as entailing admission)
- Roberts v. Holder, 745 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussed statutory treatment of adjustment as admission; Court distinguished its holding from limiting "admission" contexts)