Master The Supreme Court held that a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) does not count as an "admission" for purposes of adjustment of status under INA § 245(a). with this comprehensive case brief.
Sanchez v. Mayorkas is a leading Supreme Court decision clarifying the relationship between humanitarian relief under Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and the statutory pathway to lawful permanent residency (LPR) known as adjustment of status. The case resolves a long-standing circuit split over whether TPS recipients who originally entered the United States without inspection may adjust status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) by virtue of being "considered as" in lawful nonimmigrant status under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4).
The Court unanimously held that TPS does not retroactively convert a prior unlawful entry into an "admission," a statutorily defined term that is a threshold requirement for adjustment under § 245(a). For law students, the case is a crisp example of textualist statutory interpretation in immigration law, the careful parsing of terms of art like "admission" and "status," and the limits of legal fictions Congress creates for specific purposes. It also has substantial practical consequences for hundreds of thousands of TPS recipients, leaving any broader access to LPR status to Congress rather than to judicial inference.
Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 141 S. Ct. 1809 (U.S. 2021)
Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez, natives of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in the late 1990s. In 2001, after devastating earthquakes in El Salvador, the United States designated El Salvador for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and both Sanchez and Gonzalez were granted TPS. Years later, Sanchez's employer filed an employment-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-140), which USCIS approved. Sanchez then applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). USCIS denied the application on the ground that Sanchez had not been "inspected and admitted or paroled" into the United States, as § 1255(a) requires for adjustment. Sanchez and Gonzalez sued in federal district court in New Jersey, arguing that TPS makes a recipient "considered as" being in lawful nonimmigrant status for purposes of § 1255, which they contended satisfied § 1255(a)'s admission requirement. The district court ruled for Sanchez and Gonzalez, but the Third Circuit reversed, holding that TPS does not constitute an admission. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the Third Circuit.
Does a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a constitute an "admission" into the United States for purposes of adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)?
To adjust status to lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), a noncitizen must have been "inspected and admitted or paroled" into the United States, be eligible to receive an immigrant visa and admissible for permanent residence, and have an immigrant visa immediately available. A grant of Temporary Protected Status under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a does not itself constitute an "admission" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A). Although § 1254a(f)(4) provides that a TPS recipient "shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant for purposes of" § 1255, that provision does not deem the person to have been admitted or paroled; it addresses only lawful status and does not override § 1255(a)'s separate admission/parole threshold.
No. The Supreme Court unanimously held that a grant of TPS does not count as an "admission" for purposes of adjustment under § 1255(a). Therefore, a TPS recipient who initially entered without inspection is ineligible to adjust status under § 1255(a) on that basis alone.
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, applied a textual analysis of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 1255(a) sets a threshold requirement: the applicant must have been "inspected and admitted or paroled" into the United States. The INA defines "admission" as "the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer" (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A)). TPS, by contrast, is a humanitarian protection created by § 1254a that allows certain nationals of designated countries to remain and work temporarily in the United States during unsafe conditions in their home country. Nothing in § 1254a converts a prior unlawful entry into an admission. Petitioners relied on § 1254a(f)(4), which states that, for purposes of adjustment of status under § 1255, a TPS recipient "shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant." The Court held that this provision does not satisfy § 1255(a)'s separate and antecedent requirement of admission or parole. Being "in ... lawful status as a nonimmigrant" and being "admitted" are distinct statutory concepts. One can be in lawful nonimmigrant status without meeting the statutory definition of an admission; indeed, the INA elsewhere contemplates status changes that do not entail a new admission. By its terms, § 1254a(f)(4) addresses only lawful status for § 1255 purposes, preventing certain status-related bars from applying, but it does not eliminate the admission/parole prerequisite codified in § 1255(a). The Court also emphasized statutory structure and drafting choices. Where Congress intends to deem a person admitted or paroled, it says so expressly. Section 1254a contains no such language. Reading § 1254a(f)(4) to dispense with § 1255(a)'s admission/parole requirement would erase that requirement from the statute and contravene the INA's carefully calibrated scheme separating humanitarian protection from permanent immigration pathways. The Court rejected policy arguments about the desirability of permitting TPS recipients to adjust, noting that any such change must come from Congress. The decision did not reach scenarios not presented, such as TPS recipients who were initially admitted or later paroled (e.g., after authorized travel), nor did it invoke Chevron deference; the outcome followed from the statute's plain text.
Sanchez v. Mayorkas settles a circuit split and makes uniform the rule that TPS by itself does not create a pathway to LPR status for those who entered without inspection. For law students, it is a touchstone case in statutory interpretation, illustrating textualism, the significance of statutory definitions, and the distinction between lawful status and lawful admission. The decision also highlights separation of powers: humanitarian protections do not implicitly expand immigration benefits absent clear congressional authorization. Practically, TPS recipients who were admitted or later paroled may still pursue adjustment if they otherwise qualify, while those who entered unlawfully must rely on other statutory mechanisms (e.g., parole, § 245(i) grandfathering, consular processing with waivers) or legislative change. The case thus shapes advising strategies in immigration practice and underscores the importance of precise statutory language.
No. The decision holds only that TPS does not itself count as an "admission" for § 245(a). TPS recipients who were previously inspected and admitted (e.g., entered on a visa) or who are later paroled into the United States may satisfy § 245(a)'s threshold and can adjust if they meet all other requirements and are not barred by other provisions.
Section 1254a(f)(4) remains meaningful. It deems TPS recipients to be in lawful nonimmigrant status for purposes of § 245, which can help overcome certain status-related bars to adjustment (such as the requirement to be in lawful status at the time of filing). But it does not satisfy the separate requirement that the applicant must have been admitted or paroled.
Often yes, because parole satisfies § 245(a)'s admission/parole requirement. However, eligibility still depends on visa availability, admissibility, and the absence of other bars (e.g., some criminal or immigration violations). Agency policy on the effect of TPS-related travel has evolved, so practitioners must consult current USCIS guidance.
No. The Court did not apply Chevron deference. It resolved the case through straightforward textual analysis of the INA, concluding that the statutory language was clear.
Those individuals typically can adjust if they are otherwise eligible. Their prior lawful admission satisfies § 245(a), and § 1254a(f)(4) deems them to be in lawful nonimmigrant status for § 245 purposes, which can address certain status-related bars. They must still meet all other requirements and clear any applicable inadmissibility grounds.
Potential avenues include obtaining parole into the United States, consular processing abroad with available waivers, or eligibility under INA § 245(i) if they are grandfathered. Each path has specific criteria and risks; legal advice is essential. Broader relief would require legislative action.
Sanchez v. Mayorkas establishes that TPS does not retroactively cure an unlawful entry for purposes of adjustment of status. The Court's unanimous, text-focused opinion draws a sharp line between being in lawful status and having been lawfully admitted or paroled—both concepts that carry distinct legal consequences under the INA.
For students and practitioners, the case is a reminder that immigration outcomes often turn on precise statutory terms of art and that humanitarian protections do not inherently open pathways to permanent residence. Any broader adjustment eligibility for TPS recipients who entered without inspection must come from explicit congressional authorization, not judicial inference.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →