Supreme Court to Hear Asylum Case on Green Card Eligibility

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's ruling could affect immigration processes for asylum seekers in Michigan, particularly those with past criminal convictions, by clarifying eligibility requirements for lawful permanent residency.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next month in *Wassily v. Blanche*, a case that addresses whether individuals granted asylum must continuously hold that status to become lawful permanent residents. The case, scheduled for oral argument on November 30, focuses on differing interpretations of a federal immigration statute enacted decades ago. Federal law allows the Attorney General to grant a green card to an individual previously granted asylum. This process, known as adjustment of status, requires the individual to have been physically present in the United States for at least one year, to not have resettled in another country, to maintain a well-founded fear of persecution, and to be admissible to the United States. The Justice Department argues that the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes adjustment of status only for an alien who *currently* holds asylum status. The Solicitor General stated this position in a brief submitted to the court. Conversely, Tamer Wassily and Byron Velásquez Arreaga, the two migrants central to the case, dispute this interpretation. They argue that the Refugee Act of 1980, which established criteria for asylum recipients to adjust their status, contains "no additional, continuing asylum status requirement." Wassily and Velásquez Arreaga were both granted asylum but later lost that status due to criminal convictions. Wassily received convictions for stalking and child endangerment. Velásquez Arreaga was convicted of driving while intoxicated and aggravated driving while intoxicated. Immigration judges determined these offenses constituted "particularly serious crimes," leading to the termination of their asylum status. An immigration judge later adjusted Wassily's status to permanent resident, but a different immigration judge concluded Velásquez Arreaga was ineligible after losing his asylum status. Federal law permits the Attorney General to terminate asylum status for individuals convicted of a "particularly serious crime." This category includes offenses such as murder, tax fraud, and passport mutilation. The central point of disagreement between the parties concerns the interpretation of statutory language referring to a past action – the requirement that asylum was "granted." The petitioners contend this past tense indicates that the initial grant of asylum, rather than its continuous holding, is the relevant factor for green card eligibility. The Refugee Act of 1980 established the eligibility criteria for adjustment of status. The original law permitted "any alien granted asylum" to apply for permanent resident status if they met specific conditions, including physical presence for one year, no resettlement in another country, continued admissibility, and remaining a refugee under immigration law. The law explicitly required the well-founded fear of persecution to "continue." However, it referred to the initial asylum grant in the past tense. Changes to immigration law, particularly regarding criminal offenses, occurred later. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 authorized deportation for drug-related convictions. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 introduced the term "aggravated felony" into immigration law, establishing stricter consequences and making deportation more difficult for those convicted of defined crimes. Over the next decade, Congress expanded the list of crimes designated as aggravated felonies, leading to increased consequences for non-citizens with criminal convictions.