Sanchez v. Mayorkas
593 U.S. 409
SCOTUS2021Background
- Jose Santos Sanchez entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1997 and later worked without authorization.
- In 2001 El Salvador was designated for Temporary Protected Status (TPS); Sanchez received and has maintained TPS since then.
- In 2014 Sanchez applied to adjust status to lawful permanent resident (LPR) under 8 U.S.C. §1255; USCIS denied his application because he was never lawfully "admitted."
- The TPS statute (§1254a(f)(4)) provides that, for purposes of adjustment under §1255, a TPS recipient "shall be considered . . . as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant."
- The District Court ruled for Sanchez (treating TPS as effecting admission); the Third Circuit reversed, holding TPS does not constitute an "admission." The Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sanchez) | Defendant's Argument (Mayorkas / Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TPS's directive to "be considered . . . as a nonimmigrant" for §1255 purposes also constitutes an "admission" (lawful entry after inspection) | The statutory phrase means TPS recipients must be treated as admitted for §1255 eligibility; nonimmigrant status implies admission. | TPS confers nonimmigrant status but does not satisfy §1255's separate admission requirement; status and admission are distinct. | TPS confers nonimmigrant status for §1255 but does not constitute admission; unlawful entrants with TPS remain ineligible under §1255. |
| Whether immigration law (e.g., §1184) makes admission a prerequisite to nonimmigrant status | §1184 and the structure of the Immigration Code show nonimmigrant status requires admission. | §1184 regulates admission processes but does not establish admission as a necessary incident of nonimmigrant status; some categories have status without admission. | §1184 does not create an "indissoluble" link; Congress elsewhere recognizes nonimmigrant status without admission. |
| Whether §1255(k) (and related provisions) independently bar adjustment for those who worked without authorization even if paroled or treated differently | (Implicit) TPS or parole somehow cures prior unauthorized work or entry. | §1255(k) separately requires presence pursuant to a lawful admission for applicants who worked without authorization, independently barring adjustment. | §1255(k) independently bars adjustment for those whose presence is not pursuant to lawful admission; TPS does not overcome that bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (1906) (syllabus disclaimer cited regarding the nature of syllabi)
- Sanchez v. Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 967 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2020) (Third Circuit held TPS does not constitute admission)
- Nolasco v. Crockett, 978 F.3d 955 (5th Cir. 2020) (held TPS does not constitute admission)
- Serrano v. United States Attorney General, 655 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam; held TPS recipients who entered unlawfully cannot adjust)
- Velasquez v. Barr, 979 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 2020) (held TPS can suffice for adjustment in some circumstances)
- Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017) (held TPS may permit adjustment despite unlawful entry)
- Flores v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013) (held TPS could enable adjustment in some cases)