979 F.3d 572
8th Cir.2020Background
- Consolidated appeals from district courts holding that Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients who entered without inspection may adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).
- TPS (8 U.S.C. § 1254a) grants temporary protection and work authorization; § 1254a(f)(4) provides that for purposes of adjustment under § 1255, a TPS beneficiary “shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant.”
- § 1255(a) requires an applicant to have been “inspected and admitted” into the United States; § 1101(a)(13)(A) defines “admitted” as lawful entry after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.
- Appellees received TPS after entering without inspection, applied to adjust based on immediate-relative petitions, and were denied by USCIS for lack of proof of inspection/admission; they sued under the APA and won summary judgment in district court.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding § 1254a(f)(4) unambiguously deems TPS beneficiaries “inspected and admitted” for § 1255 purposes; the opinion acknowledges and distinguishes a conflicting line of appellate authority and dissents urging Chevron deference to the agency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TPS satisfies § 1255(a)’s “inspected and admitted” requirement | §1254a(f)(4) deems TPS holders to be in nonimmigrant status for §1255, and nonimmigrant status entails inspection and admission | §1254a(f)(4) only creates a limited lawful-status fiction for adjustment; it does not satisfy the statutory port‑of‑entry definition of admission | Court: §1254a(f)(4) unambiguously requires TPS recipients be considered “inspected and admitted” for §1255 purposes; USCIS interpretation unlawful |
| Whether agency (AAO/USCIS) interpretation merits Chevron deference | Statute is unambiguous; no deference; agency decision conflicts with INA text | If statute ambiguous, defer to longstanding agency construction (Matter of H‑G‑G‑) as reasonable | Court: statute unambiguous at Chevron step one; therefore no Chevron deference; AAO position contrary to law |
| Does “lawful status as a nonimmigrant” necessarily include inspection/admission? | “Nonimmigrant” status by definition presupposes inspection and admission under INA provisions | The “considered” language is a fiction limited to status and does not retroactively create an actual inspection/admission | Court: nonimmigrant status necessarily involves inspection/admission; Congress’ use of “nonimmigrant” in §1254a(f)(4) therefore deems TPS recipients inspected and admitted |
| Effect of circuit split and precedents | Aligns with Sixth and Ninth Circuits (Flores, Ramirez) holding TPS can satisfy §1255(a) | Points to Eleventh and Third Circuits (Serrano, Sanchez) holding TPS does not satisfy §1255(a) | Court adopts reasoning consistent with Sixth and Ninth Circuits and rejects Eleventh/Third approach |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial review of agency statutory interpretation)
- Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017) (TPS recipients treated as nonimmigrants for adjustment—deemed to meet inspection/admission)
- Flores v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013) (TPS suffices for §1255(a) inspection/admission requirement)
- Sanchez v. Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 967 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2020) (TPS does not satisfy §1255(a)’s inspected-and-admitted requirement)
- Serrano v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (same as Sanchez)
- Gomez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 652 (5th Cir. 2016) (recognizes imputed or deemed admissions in limited circumstances)
- Roberts v. Holder, 745 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2014) (INA uses “admitted” and “admission” inconsistently; supports flexible reading)
- Bonilla v. Johnson, 149 F. Supp. 3d 1135 (D. Minn. 2016) (district court decision holding TPS satisfies §1255(a))