Hernandez de Gutierrez v. Barr

Background

Sandra Hernandez de Gutierrez and Heberth Gutierrez are married citizens of El Salvador. They entered the United States without inspection in 1990. After El Salvador was designated for the temporary protected status program in 2001, both plaintiffs applied for and received that status in 2003. They consistently renewed it. Hernandez de Gutierrez was also paroled into the United States after a brief foreign trip in 2011.

Hernandez de Gutierrez’s mother, who is a United States citizen, filed an immigrant petition for her in 2004. The petition was approved that year, and an immigrant visa became available in June 2016. In late 2016, both plaintiffs applied to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to adjust their status to lawful permanent residents.

The agency denied Heberth Gutierrez’s application because it concluded that temporary protected status did not qualify as an admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). It also concluded that, even if temporary protected status counted as an admission, he had not continuously maintained lawful status since his 1990 entry, as required by § 1255(c)(2). The agency denied Hernandez de Gutierrez’s application on the same continuous-status ground, although it found that her 2011 parole satisfied the threshold requirement in § 1255(a). The agency’s Administrative Appeals Office affirmed both decisions.

The plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows courts to review whether an agency acted unlawfully, arbitrarily, or capriciously. They also sought a declaratory judgment stating that approval of temporary protected status gave them lawful nonimmigrant status for purposes of adjusting status under § 1255.

Merits ruling on Count I

The parties agreed that there were no disputed facts and that the case presented legal questions suitable for summary judgment. The court examined whether temporary protected status qualifies as an “admission” under § 1255(a), and whether § 1255(c)(2) barred the plaintiffs because they initially entered without inspection.

The court held that the temporary protected status statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4), unambiguously treats a person with temporary protected status as being in and maintaining lawful nonimmigrant status “for purposes of adjustment of status” under § 1255. Relying on the statutory text, the court concluded that a grant of temporary protected status qualifies as an admission for § 1255 purposes. It therefore rejected the agency’s contrary interpretation as arbitrary and capricious.

The court separately held that an admission through the grant of temporary protected status operates as a fresh lawful entry. Because it was undisputed that the plaintiffs continuously maintained lawful status after receiving temporary protected status in 2003, the court concluded that § 1255(c)(2) did not bar their adjustment applications based on their 1990 entry. The court therefore granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Count I and denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count I.

Count II and disposition

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, as to the declaratory judgment claim. They argued that the claim duplicated the Administrative Procedure Act claim. The court agreed because the complaint sought a declaration related to the same issues resolved through the Administrative Procedure Act claim. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Count II.

The order states: (1) the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Count I is granted; (2) the defendants’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part; (3) the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count I is denied; and (4) the defendants’ motion to dismiss Count II is granted. The opinion does not state that the agency approved the plaintiffs’ adjustment applications.