Melgar v. Barr, 379 F. Supp. 3d 783

Background

Plaintiffs Melgar and Martinez are nationals of El Salvador and Honduras who entered the U.S. without inspection in the 1990s, later obtained Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and applied to adjust status to lawful permanent resident (LPR) based on U.S. citizen daughters' immigrant petitions.
USCIS denied their adjustment applications, asserting TPS does not satisfy INA § 245(a)’s threshold requirement that an applicant was "inspected and admitted or paroled."
Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking judicial review of USCIS denials and moved for summary judgment; defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment.
The statutory text at issue is 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4) (TPS beneficiaries “shall be considered … in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant” for purposes of § 1255) and 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (adjustment available to aliens “inspected and admitted or paroled”).
The court framed the question as one of statutory interpretation under Chevron: whether § 1254a(f)(4) unambiguously deems TPS beneficiaries "inspected and admitted" for purposes of adjustment under § 1255.
The court concluded § 1254a(f)(4) is plain and unambiguous that TPS confers status equivalent to nonimmigrant lawful status for purposes of § 1255, so TPS satisfies the § 1255(a) threshold; it granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment, denied defendants’ dismissal motion, and remanded to USCIS for further adjudication consistent with the opinion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TPS satisfies § 1255(a)’s "inspected and admitted or paroled" threshold	TPS under § 1254a(f)(4) makes beneficiaries "considered … in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant," which by statute and context equates to being deemed admitted for § 1255 purposes	"Admission" requires a lawful physical entry after inspection at port of entry; TPS only conveys lawful status, not admission, so Plaintiffs remain ineligible if they entered unlawfully	Court held § 1254a(f)(4) unambiguously applies to all of § 1255 and deems TPS recipients to have the necessary inspection/admission for adjustment
Whether § 1254a(f)(4) is limited to § 1255(c)(2) (maintenance-of-status bar) rather than § 1255(a) (admission threshold)	§ 1254a(f)(4)’s reference to "section 1255" means the entire section, not a subset; Congress’ use of "nonimmigrant" implies admission	Defendants urge a narrow reading: Congress would have said "admitted as a nonimmigrant" if it intended to supply admission; the statute should be read to preserve distinct admission and status requirements	Court rejected the narrow reading and held the plain text reaches § 1255(a) as well as § 1255(c)(2)
Whether agency interpretation requires Chevron deference	Plaintiffs argue the statute is unambiguous so Chevron step one resolves the question	Defendants rely on agency interpretation denying admission effect to TPS, seeking deference	Court found the statute unambiguous at Chevron step one and declined to defer to the agency
Whether policy/logic supports requiring physical exit/reentry for TPS beneficiaries to adjust status	Plaintiffs argue requiring return to home country is impractical and contrary to purpose of TPS and statutory scheme	Defendants contend physical entry/inspection is the traditional meaning of admission and Congress did not intend to allow circumvention	Court found the practical and statutory reading supports deeming TPS recipients admitted for adjustment, and that requiring exit/reentry would be inconsistent with statutory text and purpose

Key Cases Cited

Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir.) (TPS conferral of nonimmigrant status means beneficiary is deemed admitted for adjustment purposes)
Flores v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir.) (§ 1254a(f)(4) allows TPS recipient to be considered in lawful nonimmigrant status for § 1255 adjustment)
Serrano v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 655 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir.) (narrower view: TPS does not override § 1255(a)’s inspected-and-admitted threshold)
Roberts v. Holder, 745 F.3d 928 (8th Cir.) (immigration statutes treat "admission" inconsistently; adjustment can be treated as an admission)
Bonilla v. Johnson, 149 F. Supp. 3d 1135 (D. Minn.) (§ 1254a(f)(4) applies to entirety of § 1255 and satisfies § 1255(a) prerequisite)
Medina v. Beers, 65 F. Supp. 3d 419 (E.D. Pa.) (comprehensive rebuttal of government's arguments that § 1254a(f)(4) does not supply admission)
Leymis V. v. Whitaker, 355 F. Supp. 3d 779 (D. Minn.) (TPS conferral parallels nonimmigrant admission and satisfies § 1255 requirements)