Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Sanchez v. Mayorkas

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Sanchez v. Mayorkas
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argument: April 19, 2021
Decided: June 7, 2021
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Elena Kagan • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
This article is about the court case previously known as Sanchez v. Wolf; it became Sanchez v. Mayorkas when Alejandro Mayorkas became the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security.

Sanchez v. Mayorkas is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States during the court's October 2020-2021 term.[1]

In a unanimous opinion, the court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit's ruling, holding that a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient who entered the United States unlawfully is not eligible under §1255 for lawful-permanent-resident (LPR) status by means of their TPS. Justice Elena Kagan authored the court's opinion.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Husband and wife Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez, the plaintiffs, are citizens of El Salvador who were granted and later re-granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The plaintiffs filed for permanent resident status, claiming that their TPS grants made them eligible for admission. USCIS denied their applications, stating that the TPS grants did not admit the plaintiffs into the country. The plaintiffs challenged the ruling in district court and the District of New Jersey awarded the plaintiffs summary judgment. The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which reversed the district court's ruling. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issues: The case concerned grants of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to non-citizens.
  • The questions presented: "Whether, under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4), a grant of Temporary Protected Status authorizes eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. §1255."[3][4]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit's ruling.



    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.[5]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 7, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit's ruling.
    • April 19, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • January 8, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. When the case was originally accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the case name was Sanchez v. Wolf.
    • September 8, 2020: Jose Santos Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • July 22, 2020: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey's ruling, holding that a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) does not establish an admission of a noncitizen into the United States for permanent residence under Section 1255 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    Background

    Husband and wife Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez, the plaintiffs, are citizens of El Salvador. They entered the United States without inspection or admission in 1997 and in 1998. After a series of earthquakes in El Salvador in 2001, the plaintiffs applied for and received Temporary Protected Status (TPS).[6] After the initial TPS grant, the Attorney General periodically extended TPS eligibility for El Salvadoran nationals, allowing the plaintiffs to remain in the United States.[5]

    In 2014, the plaintiffs applied to become lawful permanent residents of the United States under Section 1255 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied their applications, stating that Sanchez was ineligible because he had not been admitted into the country and that Gonzalez's application was dependent upon the success of Sanchez's application.[5]

    The plaintiffs challenged USCIS' determination in federal district court, arguing that the grants of TPS constituted Sanchez's admission into the United States. The District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that TPS grants meet the Immigration and Nationality Act's admission requirement.[5]

    The U.S. government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. On appeal, the 3rd Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs were ineligible for an adjustment of their immigration status because their interpretation of being admitted to the country under the Immigration and Nationality Act was inconsistent with the text, context, structure, and purpose of Sections 1254 and 1255 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and reversed the District of New Jersey's judgment.[5]

    Immigration and Nationality Act

    Section 1254

    To read Section 1254 subsections (a) and (f), click here.

    Section 1255

    Section 1255(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act reads as follows:Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer. Use a descriptive title

    “ (a) Status as person admitted for permanent residence on application and eligibility for immigrant visa

    The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if (1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.[7]

    		”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3][4]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether, under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4), a grant of Temporary Protected Status authorizes eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. §1255.

    [7]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[8]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[9]

    Outcome

    In a unanimous opinion, the court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit's ruling, holding that a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient who entered the United States unlawfully is not eligible under §1255 for lawful-permanent-resident (LPR) status by means of their TPS. Justice Elena Kagan authored the court's opinion.[2]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:[2]

    “ Petitioner Jose Santos Sanchez entered this country unlawfully from El Salvador. Years later, because of unsafe living conditions in that country, the Government granted him Temporary Protected Status (TPS), entitling him to stay and work in the United States for as long as those conditions persist. Sanchez now wishes to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States. The question here is whether the conferral of TPS enables him to obtain LPR status despite his unlawful entry. We hold that it does not. ...


    ... Section 1255 generally requires a lawful admission before a person can obtain LPR status. Sanchez was not lawfully admitted, and his TPS does not alter that fact. He therefore cannot become a permanent resident of this country. We affirm the judgment below.[7]

    		”
    —Justice Elena Kagan

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[10]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ When the case was originally accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the case name was Sanchez v. Wolf.
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 U.S. Supreme Court, Sanchez v. Mayorkas, decided June 7, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Sanchez v. Wolf: Questions presented," accessed January 11, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Sanchez v. Wolf: Petition for a writ of certiorari," September 8, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Sanchez v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., decided July 22, 2020
    6. ↑ USCIS, "Temporary Protected Status (TPS)," accessed January 11, 2021
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed April 20, 2021
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," accessed April 20, 2021
    10. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sanchez_v._Mayorkas&oldid=8891679"