Introduction

The Supreme Court case Jose S. Sanchez, et ux., Petitioners v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. (141 S. Ct. 1809, 2021) addresses a pivotal issue in U.S. immigration law: whether the conferral of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) can mitigate the consequences of an unlawful entry for the purpose of obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status under §1255 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Parties Involved:

• Petitioner: Jose Santos Sanchez, a citizen of El Salvador.
• Respondent: Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security.

Background: Sanchez entered the United States unlawfully in 1997 and was later granted TPS in 2001 due to dangerous conditions in El Salvador. In 2014, he sought to adjust his status to that of an LPR under §1255 but was denied on the grounds of his unlawful entry. The case escalated through the courts, culminating in the Supreme Court's decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Third Circuit's decision that holding TPS does not render an individual who entered the United States unlawfully eligible for LPR status under §1255. The Court clarified that §1255's requirement for "admission" — a lawful entry after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer — remains a distinct and non-overridable condition, even for TPS recipients.

Justice Kagan, delivering the opinion of the Court, emphasized the statutory language distinguishing lawful admission from lawful status maintained through TPS. The decision underscores that TPS confers nonimmigrant status but does not equate to lawful admission, thereby maintaining the legal barrier for individuals who entered the U.S. without authorization from adjusting to permanent residency through the §1255 pathway.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court examined prior cases where similar issues were addressed:

• Sanchez v. Secretary U. S. Dept. of Homeland Security (CA3 2020): Held that TPS does not constitute lawful admission.
• Nolasco v. Crockett (CA5 2020): Supported the view that unlawful entry bars adjustment under §1255 despite TPS.
• Serrano v. United States Attorney General (CA11 2011): Reiterated the separation between status and admission.
• Velasquez v. Barr (CA8 2020): Contrarily held that admission could be inferred, but was not the majority view.

These cases collectively highlighted the circuit split regarding TPS's role in LPR eligibility, prompting the Supreme Court to resolve the inconsistency.

Legal Reasoning

The Court dissected the statutory language of both §1255 and §1254a (governing TPS):

• §1255: Requires that applicants for LPR status must have been "inspected and admitted or paroled" into the U.S.
• §1254a(f)(4): States that TPS recipients are "considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant" for adjustment purposes.

The key distinction lies in the separation of "lawful status" from "admission." The Court clarified that TPS's conferment of nonimmigrant status under §1254a does not fulfill the admission requirement under §1255. Admission implies a lawful entry with inspection and authorization, which TPS does not provide.

The Court underscored that allowing TPS to substitute for admission would blur the fundamental immigration framework separating status from entry authorization, potentially undermining the integrity of the admissions process.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for immigration law:

• Clarification of Statutory Interpretation: Reinforces the distinct legal concepts of admission and status in immigration proceedings.
• Limitations on TPS Recipients: TPS alone does not grant a pathway to permanent residency for individuals who entered unlawfully, tightening the eligibility criteria under §1255.
• Policy Considerations: May influence future legislative actions, as seen in the American Dream and Promise Act of 2021, which seeks to address limitations highlighted by this decision.
• Judicial Precedence: Settles the circuit split, guiding lower courts on similar matters involving TPS and LPR eligibility.

Overall, the decision maintains stringent requirements for permanent residency, emphasizing lawful admission as a non-negotiable criterion.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

TPS is a humanitarian program that allows nationals from countries experiencing extraordinary conditions — such as natural disasters or armed conflict — to live and work in the U.S. temporarily. It does not confer permanent residency or citizenship but provides relief from removal and authorizes employment.

Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) Status

An LPR, commonly known as a green card holder, is authorized to live and work in the United States permanently. Obtaining LPR status typically requires lawful admission to the country, often through family sponsorship, employment, or other eligibility categories.

Admission vs. Status

Admission: The act of being lawfully entered into the U.S. by an immigration officer, involving inspection and authorization.
Status: The legal standing of an individual in the U.S., such as nonimmigrant or immigrant status, which governs their rights and obligations.
These are distinct concepts; one can have lawful status without being lawfully admitted, and vice versa.

Adjustment of Status

This refers to the process by which an individual already present in the U.S. on a temporary (nonimmigrant) visa adjusts to become a Lawful Permanent Resident without having to return to their home country for visa processing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Jose S. Sanchez v. Mayorkas firmly establishes that Temporary Protected Status does not mitigate the consequences of an unlawful entry concerning eligibility for Lawful Permanent Residency under §1255. By delineating the separation between admission and status, the Court upheld the statutory requirements that maintain lawful entry as a foundational criterion for permanent residency.

This ruling reinforces the importance of lawful procedures in immigration processes and clarifies the limitations of TPS as a standalone protective measure. For policymakers and advocates, the decision highlights the necessity for legislative action if the goal is to provide a clear pathway to permanent residency for TPS recipients who entered the U.S. unlawfully. In the broader legal context, the judgment upholds the integrity of immigration laws by ensuring that fundamental entry requirements are not circumvented by temporary status designations.