UVA Law
PHOTO: UVA Law
David writes in Just Security:
Currently before the Supreme Court is a little-noticed immigration case with profound significance. Sanchez v. Mayorkas offers the Biden administration an opportunity to make major progress, without waiting for legislative action, on one of its central humanitarian goals – providing durable status to long-resident noncitizens.
A straightforward change in the government’s policy and its litigation stance could help remove a barrier blocking critical relief to several tens of thousands of noncitizens who have resided in the United States with official government permission under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Because of a longstanding but misguided agency reading of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), these noncitizens are stuck in limbo and practically unable to get the permanent resident status for which they are independently eligible based on family or employment relationships. Those most affected are TPS recipients married to U.S. citizens. The case turns on a highly technical question of statutory interpretation over which six courts of appeals have so far split evenly, but the human stakes are substantial, and a change of position by the administration would have significant impact.
The plaintiff TPS holders in Sanchez may well win the case based on the plain language of the relevant statutes, as ably argued in their brief and by supporting amici. But until now, the government has argued, to the contrary, that the language of the statute compels the agency’s current restrictive interpretation. This essay contends that the administration could provide crucial support for the TPS holders under a different legal framework that, for understandable reasons, neither side has given much emphasis.
The alternative approach is for the administration to acknowledge – in light of the statutory text, the deep and abiding circuit split, and a surprising November ruling by the Justice Department’s own Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) – that the statutory language is ambiguous. On that foundation, the government has the discretion to adopt a new (and better) interpretation that would permit eligible TPS recipients to make use of adjustment of status to obtain a green card.
In 2019, the Trump administration entrenched the restrictive interpretation through an obscure process rather clearly invoked to complicate a later policy change. The Biden administration should nonetheless undertake immediate reconsideration of the government’s position and seek to defer the pending Supreme Court briefing schedule to allow that agency process to proceed. A more refined position by the new administration would promote family unity and avoid compelling spouses of U.S. citizens to return to the very country from which they have escaped in order to seek the immigrant visa for which they already qualify.
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of David’s article, explaining his suggestions, at the link.
This issue came up before me at the Arlington Immigration Court. After holding “oral argument,” I simply followed the statutory language and granted adjustment of status to the TPS holder.
In that case, following the literal statutory language produced the most reasonable policy result. As I pointed out to DHS counsel, the mis-interpretation they were pushing would not only violate the statutory language, but also result in a long-time TPS resident with work authorization who was paying taxes and supporting an American family being deprived of the legal immigration status to which he was entitled.
The result desired by DHS would have been highly nonsensical. Why make individuals who fit the legal immigration system established by Congress, and who actually have been contributing to our nation and our economy for many years, remain in limbo? In many cases, lack of a green card limits the both the earning and career potential of such individuals, plus adding unnecessary stress and uncertainty to the situation of their U.S. citizen family members.
The DHS reserved an appeal. I don’t believe it was ever pursued, however. And, of course, as a mere Immigration Judge (even before the position was “dumbed down” by the Trump DOJ) my decision only affected that particular case. It wasn’t a precedent.
But, it does illustrate my oft-made point that having “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights as Immigration Judges, BIA Judges, Article III Judges, and policy officials would be a huge positive change, making our immigration system fairer, more efficient, and more responsive to our national needs, even without major legislative changes. Also, these adjustments could be handled at USCIS, promoting uniformity while eliminating unnecessary litigation from the bloated Immigration Court docket.
Certainly, both the Solicitor General’s Office and the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) urgently need new leadership with practical experience in immigration and human rights policies and litigation. It’s definitely out here in the private/NGO/academic sectors. The only question is whether Judge Garland and his team will go out and get the right talent in the key jobs.
Even today, as I often point out, defending “boneheaded” anti-immigrant positions, horrible mis-interpretations, and stupid policies before Federal Courts, often with false or misleading narratives about the practical effects, is a huge drain on our justice system and is wasting the time of the Government, Federal Courts, and the private bar, as well as often producing counterproductive or inconsistent results. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/03/12/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bdjennifer-doherty-law360-analyzes-judge-illstons-massive-takedown-of-eoirs-anti-due-process-regulations-i-speak-out-on-why-judge-garlan/
Talk about taking a potential win-win-win-win and converting it to a lose-lose-lose-lose! But, the latter was a “specialty” of the Trump regime and their DOJ.
As David astutely points out, cases such as Sanchez v Mayorkas might appear “hyper-technical” to some; but, to those who truly understand our current broken immigraton system, they have huge implications. We need the expertise of the “practical scholars” of the NDPA throughout our governing structure — starting, but not ending, with a complete “housecleaning” at the disgracefully dysfunctional EOIR.
The only question is whether Judge Garland, Secretary Mayorkas, and the others in charge of the Government’s immigraton bureaucracy will (finally, at long last) bring in the right talent to solve their problems!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!
PWS
03-14-21
