District Court Says TPS Beneficiary is Eligible to Adjust Status Under INA
AILA has released a district court ruling on an individual case that may have a larger impact on the handling of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) cases in the future.
In 1999, El Salvadorian Jesus Ramirez entered the US without inspection, admission, or being granted parole by an immigration officer. Following the 2001 earthquake disaster in El Salvador, the U.S. Attorney General designated El Salvador as a TPS qualifying country. Ramirez applied for TPS, disclosing his unlawful entry into the U.S. in the process, and was approved for protected status. He renewed his status as needed in the following years.
In 2012, Ramirez married Barbara Lopez, an American citizen. Lopez filed a Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) on Ramirez’s behalf, while Ramirez filed a Form I-485 application to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. USCIS initially denied the status adjustment on the grounds that Ramirez was not “inspected and admitted or paroled” at the time of his initial entry into the U.S. Ramirez and Lopez sought judicial review of the decision, and the district court handling the case found that Ramirez’s grant of TPS qualified as “inspection and admission” into the U.S. for purposes of obtaining lawful permanent residency.
Scialabba v Cuellar de Osorio
FoxnewsLatino.com reports that the Supreme Court ruled against Rosalina Cuellar de Osorio in the case concerning her son, who technically “aged-out” of his approved visa. In 1998, Cuellar de Osorio applied for a visa to join her mother in the US with her then thirteen-year-old son. After waiting over seven years for the approved visa, Cuellar de Osorio was informed that her son (now 21) would have to start his application over as an adult.
Lawmakers proposed the 2002 Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) precisely for the purpose of keeping lawful immigrant families together even if a child “ages out” of his or her approved visa. The proposal was signed into law by former President George W. Bush. However, in Cuellar de Osorio’s case, a plurality of the Supreme Court determined CSPA to be “confusing and contradictory,” ultimately resulting in a ruling against Cuellar de Osorio and her son. A bipartisan group of lawmakers including Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) released a statement claiming that CSPA was meant to be interpreted broadly so as to help as many immigrant families as possible, but the Court read this “broad interpretation” as “ambiguity.” The Court deferred to immigration officials and came to the conclusion that Cuellar de Osorio’s son would indeed have to reapply for a visa as an adult.
A petition for a rehearing has been filed by Cuellar de Osorio was filed shortly after the decision was released based on a claim that the decision was based on a mistake. According to the brief (excerpted at LexisNexis – http://bit.ly/1xOyLs6):
Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.