Sanchez v. Mayorkas

Petitioner Jose Santos Sanchez, a Salvadoran national, entered the United States without inspection. He later received Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and sought to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his application, concluding that TPS does not cure an unlawful entry for purposes of the statutory requirement of having been “inspected and admitted.” The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Elena Kagan, held that a grant of TPS does not constitute an “admission” under 8 U.S.C. §1255. The Court reasoned that the TPS statute treats beneficiaries as maintaining their prior immigration status, and a nonimmigrant TPS holder who entered unlawfully is not thereby transformed into a lawful entrant eligible for adjustment of status.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a grant of TPS does not constitute an admission under INA §245(a). The decision affirmed the denial of adjustment of status for Sanchez, holding that a lawful admission requires an inspection and authorization at the time of entry, which TPS does not retroactively supply.

Whether a noncitizen who unlawfully entered the United States and subsequently obtained Temporary Protected Status is deemed “inspected and admitted” under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, thereby becoming eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status.

The ruling directly affected an estimated 400,000 TPS recipients, many of whom were long-term residents ineligible for green cards due to an initial unlawful entry. It underscored the limitations of executive immigration relief and heightened calls for legislative reform to provide a path to permanent residence for TPS holders. Advocacy groups viewed the decision as a significant setback for immigrant communities, while it reinforced the legal distinction between lawful admission and protection from removal.