These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
admission
USCIS has rescinded Matter of Z-R-Z-C, a published decision that stated that TPS holders who travel on advanced parole are not admitted or paroled under section 245(a) of the INA. USCIS has also determined that it will no longer issue advance parole to TPS holders, but will rather issue a new travel document that makes clear the travelers are being admitted to the United States upon return.
The new policy memorandum can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has found that an individual who acquires Temporary Protected Status is not “admitted in any status” for the purposes of cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents.
The full text of Hernandez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/06/28/21-70493.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a petitioner who held temporary resident status, and who stopped at a Customs and Border Patrol checkpoint and subsequently released after showing his temporary resident card, was not admitted to the United States by virtue of this encounter. Admission, instead, requires presentation at a port of entry followed by entry with government consent. The court did clarify that “noncitizens factually admitted to the United States at a U.S. port of entry while they hold temporary resident status under § 1255a(a) do not magically become unadmitted once their temporary resident status ends.”
The full text of Posos Sanchez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/07/07/17-72002.pdf
The Supreme Court has determined that a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) does not, in and of itself, render a non-citizen “admitted” to the United States. The Court did not reach the question of whether a TPS holder who travels on parole would be considered “admitted or paroled” for the purpose of adjustment of status. In addition, the decision contains some very worrisome language implying that a grant of a U visa would not qualify as admission.
The full text of Sanchez v. Mayorkas can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) does not constitute an admission in any status for cancellation of removal purposes. The Eighth Circuit recognized that it had determined that TPS is an admission for adjustment of status purposes, but limited that decision to the adjustment context only.
The full text of Artola v. Garland can be found here:
The Fifth Circuit has concluded that Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is not an admission for adjustment of status purposes. However, the Court noted that a TPS holder could obtain advance parole, travel abroad, and return to the United States. Their return would meet the requirement of being inspected and paroled for adjustment of status.
The full text of Solorzano v. Mayorkas can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-50220-CV0.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) has determined than an individual who previously held Temporary Protected Status (TPS) has not been admitted to the United States for removability purposes. The Board also reaffirmed that outside of the Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, TPS is not an admission for adjustment of status purposes.
The full text of Matter of Padilla Rodriguez can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that Temporary Protected Status holders are admitted and inspected for the purpose of adjustment of status. “Section 1254a(f)(4) mandates that TPS beneficiaries ‘shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant’ for purposes of § 1255. 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4). And an individual cannot gain nonimmigrant status without being considered inspected and admitted. That is, by the express provisions of the INA, (1) every person with lawful status as a nonimmigrant has been ‘admitted’ into the United States, and (2) all nonimmigrants are ‘inspected’ before admission.”
The full text of Velasquez v. Barr can be found here:
A district court in Minnesota has rejected the AAO’s decision in Matter of H-G-G-, which held that a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is not an admission for adjustment of status purposes. The court further held that for the purpose of the continuous maintenance of status requirements in section 245(c) of the INA, the grant of TPS constitutes a new entry, and maintenance of status should be measured starting on the date of the grant of TPS.
The case is called Hernandez de Gutierrez & Gutierrez v. Barr and can be found on PACER by looking up Case # 0:19-cv-02495-JRT-KMM in the District of Minnesota.
The Third Circuit has held that a grant of Temporary Protected Status is not an admission for the purposes of adjustment of status.
The full text of Sanchez v. Secretary of DHS can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a non-citizen who has been granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) has been inspected and admitted, as required for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the INA. The court noted that the INA specifically states that for adjustment of status purposes, TPS holders are considered to be maintaining lawful nonimmigrant status, and also deems that a person must be admitted to the United States to obtain nonimmigrant status.
The full text of Ramirez v. Brown can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/03/31/14-35633.pdf
Samuel Gomez was granted temporary residence, given him the ability to travel abroad and re-enter the United States. He did so, and was admitted upon return through a port of entry. His temporary residence was later revoked. The Fifth Circuit determined that this revocation did not undermine the fact of his admission at a port of entry.
The full text of Gomez v. Lynch can be found here:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-60661-CV1.pdf
Samuel Gomez was approved for temporary residency. Using the travel authorization that accompanied this status, he traveled to El Salvador and back to the United States. Years later, the applied for adjustment of status to the United States. To prove his lawful entry, he produced his temporary residence card, round trip plane tickets, a baggage receipt, entry and exits stamps from El Salvador in his passport, and affidavits from himself and his wife (who verified that she picked him up at the airport in Houston). The agency determined that this was insufficient to demonstrate that he actually passed through the immigration inspection area in the airport and was admitted to the United States. The agency relied in part on the fact that Mr. Gomez had twice listed his entry as one "without inspection" on other immigration documents. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that the evidence did not compel a contrary conclusion.
This is a worrisome case, casting serious doubts on the viability of Matter of Quilantan in the Fifth Circuit.
The full text of Gomez v. Lynch can be found here: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-60661-CV0.pdf
