Santos Sanchez v. Mayorkas (20-315)

argument 20-315

Santos Sanchez v. Mayorkas

Supreme Court of the United States 59 min 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the core legal question about TPS recipients and admission status?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument next in Case 2315, Sanchez v. Mayorkas. Ms. Saharia?

Unknown 0:08

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, TPS recipients satisfy the admission requirement for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. That is because Section 1254 considers TPS recipients to be in lawful status as a nonimmigrant for purposes of adjusting status and having been admitted is inherent in nonimmigrant status. The government's view that admission is not inherent in nonimmigrant status is untenable. The INA distinguishes between categories of persons who are admitted and those who are not. Some persons with lawful status, such as asylees and parolees, are not admitted. Individuals in nonimmigrant status are admitted. As the DHS Policy Manual states, a nonimmigrant is a person who is admitted for a specific period of time.

Unknown 0:58

The INA's express exception for non-immigrant crewmen demonstrates that unless Congress makes an exception, admission is inherent in non-immigrant status. The government's primary response is to argue that the statute considers TPS recipients to be in lawful status but not admitted. But if Congress intended only that limited function, it need only have said that TPS recipients are considered to be in lawful status, period. The function served by the additional phrase, as a nonimmigrant, is to ensure that TPS recipients are considered admitted just as all nonimmigrants are. This is the only sensible reading of the statute. TPS recipients are subject to rigorous scrutiny and risk removal by coming forward and registering.

Unknown 1:45

In exchange, Congress made them eligible to adjust status if they acquire a qualifying relationship, assuming they meet all the statutory requirements, which not all will. By contrast, a government's interpretation would shrink the pool of eligible TPS recipients to the few with non-immigrant status before they receive TPS. There is no warrant in the text for that result. I welcome the court's questions.

John G. Roberts 2:10

Counsel, as I understand your argument, it's that people in non-immigrant status go through a process to get there that includes admission and inspection. And there's another way to get to non-immigrant status, and that is by being a TPS officer. recipient. And your argument seems to me to be that, well, if you're in non-immigrant status as a TPS recipient, you must have been admitted and inspected or treated as such because that's the other way to get to non-immigrant status. And I wonder why they're just not two different routes. And if you come in one route, the TPS route, that doesn't mean that you've checked every box to get in through the other route. So the It seems to me that I can't follow the logic of your main submission.

Unknown 3:00

So I don't think that is an entirely accurate characterization of our position. Our position is not that TPS recipients are in non-immigrant status, it's clear that they are not for all purposes. Our position is simply that S4 considers TPS recipients to be in lawful non-immigrant status for just one purpose, that purpose being adjustment of status. And importantly, the only characteristic of non-immigrant status that is even relevant to adjusting status is the fact that non-immigrants are inspected and admitted.

John G. Roberts 3:35

Well, but usually, I mean, there are other places where Congress deems people, when they want to get to that same status, to have been admitted and inspected. And therefore, you would say, well, they should be regarded as having checked that box when you're determining parole and other situations. But that's not what the statute does here. It doesn't say that you are deemed to have been admitted and inspected. It says that you have nonimmigrant status.

Unknown 4:05

That's because that particular formulation would not have achieved all of Congress's objectives in F4. For example, deeming TPS recipients simply to have been inspected and admitted would not have permitted TPS recipients to change to nonimmigrant status under Section 1258, and we know Congress intended that as well because it cross-referenced Section 1258.