Rodriguez Solorzano v. Pekoske, 987 F.3d 392

Plaintiff Luis Rodriguez Solorzano entered the U.S. without inspection or admission in 1997 and later received Temporary Protected Status (TPS) after Honduras was designated following Hurricane Mitch.
In 2014 Solorzano’s U.S. citizen wife filed an immigrant petition and he applied to adjust status to lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255.
USCIS denied the adjustment application because Solorzano had never been "inspected and admitted or paroled" as required by § 1255(a).
Solorzano sued, arguing 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4) (which treats TPS recipients "as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant" for adjustment purposes) satisfies § 1255(a)’s admission requirement; the district court agreed and remanded to the agency.
The government appealed; the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that TPS does not constitute inspection/admission or waive § 1255(a)’s admission requirement, and instructed the district court to dismiss Solorzano’s complaint.
The court recognized a circuit split (some circuits hold TPS cures the admission requirement; others do not) and noted the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Sanchez, so the issue will be resolved at the high court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a grant of TPS satisfies § 1255(a)’s requirement that an alien be "inspected and admitted or paroled" before adjusting to lawful permanent resident	Solorzano: § 1254a(f)(4) treats TPS recipients as in lawful nonimmigrant status, which fulfills § 1255(a)’s admission requirement	Government: § 1254a(f)(4) confers a temporary status but does not equate to or waive the separate statutory requirement of inspection and admission under § 1255(a)	Court: TPS does not constitute inspection/admission or waive § 1255(a); Solorzano cannot adjust status and the district court’s remand is reversed

Flores v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013) (held TPS can satisfy § 1255 admission requirement)
Velasquez v. Barr, 979 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 2020) (held TPS can satisfy § 1255 admission requirement)
Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017) (characterized TPS as temporary relief and held TPS can satisfy adjustment eligibility in that case)
Sanchez v. Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 967 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2020) (held TPS does not satisfy § 1255 admission requirement; Supreme Court granted certiorari)
Serrano v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 655 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011) (held TPS does not satisfy § 1255 admission requirement)
Nolasco v. Crockett, 978 F.3d 955 (5th Cir. 2020) (Fifth Circuit precedent holding aliens who entered unlawfully cannot adjust based on TPS)
Gomez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 652 (5th Cir. 2016) (distinguishes admission from status; admission is an event whereas status describes permission to remain)
Melendez v. McAleenan, 928 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2019) (held TPS does not equate to a new entry or cure prior entry defects)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for deferring to agency interpretation when statute is ambiguous)
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (principle that differing statutory language in adjacent provisions is purposeful and significant)