Leymis V. v. Sessions

Background

Leymis V. and Sandra O. are citizens of El Salvador who entered the United States without inspection or admission in 2000 and 1993. After El Salvador was designated for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), both plaintiffs applied for and received TPS, with later renewals. TPS provided temporary protection from removal and work authorization.

The plaintiffs later applied for family-based adjustment of status to become lawful permanent residents. Leymis V.’s U.S. citizen husband and Sandra O.’s U.S. citizen child had petitioned for immigrant visas for them. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) requested evidence that the plaintiffs had been lawfully admitted. Although they submitted evidence of their TPS status and legal arguments supporting their eligibility, USCIS denied both applications, stating that a TPS grant was not an admission. USCIS also stated that the denials could not be administratively appealed.

The plaintiffs brought this action under the Administrative Procedure Act, which permits a court to set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The parties agreed that no material facts were disputed and filed cross-motions addressing the statutory question.

Issue

The issue was whether a TPS beneficiary is considered “inspected and admitted” for purposes of the threshold requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), which governs adjustment of immigration status to lawful permanent resident status.

Analysis

The court held that the answer was yes. Section 1254a(f)(4) provides that, for adjustment of status under section 1255, a TPS beneficiary must be considered to be in and maintaining lawful status as a nonimmigrant. The court explained that the immigration statutes repeatedly connect nonimmigrant status with inspection and admission. Therefore, obtaining lawful nonimmigrant status under the TPS statute necessarily means that the person is considered inspected and admitted for section 1255(a)’s purposes.

The court also found that the TPS application and approval process shares important features with the process for obtaining nonimmigrant status. In both processes, the applicant must establish identity and citizenship, show eligibility for admission, and undergo review by USCIS, sometimes including an interview. The court concluded that Congress intended a TPS grant to have the same legal effect as obtaining nonimmigrant status for this purpose.

The defendants argued that “inspected and admitted” under section 1255(a) was separate from the requirement to maintain lawful status and relied on decisions from other courts. The court rejected that interpretation, finding meaningful differences between the statutory language in section 1254a(f)(4) and section 1255(c)(2). It also concluded that section 1254a(f)(4) refers to adjustment under section 1255 as a whole, not only to the subsection concerning continuous lawful status. Because the statutory language was clear, the court did not defer to USCIS’s contrary interpretation or consider legislative history.

Disposition

The court concluded that the plaintiffs met section 1255(a)’s threshold requirement because they had been granted TPS. It found that USCIS’s contrary decisions were arbitrary and capricious, reversed those decisions, and remanded the matter to USCIS for further review consistent with the opinion.

The court specifically ordered:

- The plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was granted. - The defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied. - The matter was remanded to USCIS for further proceedings.