Sanjel v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Laura Swain
- 1:19-cv-10347
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sanjel v. USCIS, Judge Swain extended the stay while the immigration agency reviewed its policy affecting Sanjel’s adjustment-of-status application.
Sanjel and the United States government were affected: the case was put on hold while U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reviewed the policy at issue, with a status report due by July 5, 2022.
What happened
In Sanjel v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the plaintiff seeks review of the denial of an application to register permanent residence or adjust immigration status. The government said the plaintiff has a removal order but temporary protected status, and that the legal effect of travel under advance permission is central to the case.
The government asked to keep the case on hold for another 60 days while the immigration agency reviewed its policy and related appeals remained pending. The government said that review or those appeals could change the agency’s position and possibly make the case unnecessary. The plaintiff agreed to the request.
Judge Swain is identified in the case metadata, while Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo’s order granted the application and extended the stay to July 5, 2022. The parties were directed to file a status report with proposed next steps at that time.
The detailed version
- Sanjel v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services · No. 1:19-cv-10347
- Laura Swain
- May 9, 2022
Background
Sanjel seeks review of the denial of his application to register permanent residence or adjust status, using Form I-485. The government stated that Sanjel is subject to a removal order but has been granted Temporary Protected Status. The dispute concerns the legal effect of Sanjel’s travel to and return from the United States under advance permission to travel.
The government described its current interpretation of the relevant immigration laws as follows: travel and return by a person with Temporary Protected Status does not execute a removal order, so the person remains a noncitizen with a removal order. Under that interpretation, the immigration judge has exclusive authority over adjustment of status after removal proceedings begin, meaning U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services cannot decide the Form I-485. The government also stated that the travel did not constitute a lawful admission and that Sanjel therefore had not continuously maintained lawful status.
Request to Continue the Stay
The court had previously granted, with the parties’ agreement, a 60-day stay so U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services could review the policy involved in the dispute. The government requested an additional 60-day stay because the agency was continuing that review. The government also pointed to two appeals pending before the agency’s Administrative Appeals Office involving the legal effect of travel and return by a Temporary Protected Status recipient. Sanjel consented to the request.
Ruling
The application was granted. The stay was extended to Tuesday, July 5, 2022, and the parties were directed to submit a status report with proposed next steps at that time. The order did not decide whether the agency correctly denied Sanjel’s adjustment-of-status application.
The case metadata identifies Judge Laura Swain, but the provided order bears the approval of Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo. The provided text does not explain the relationship between those judicial assignments.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.