Sanchez v. Mayorkas
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Temporary Protected Status — the program allowing nationals of certain dangerous countries to live and work in the US — does not by itself make an illegal entrant eligible for a green card.
Because federal law requires a lawful entry (called an 'admission') before a person can apply for permanent residency, and TPS grants legal status but not a retroactive lawful entry, TPS holders who originally crossed the border illegally remain ineligible for this green-card pathway unless Congress changes the law.
“The TPS program gives foreign nationals nonimmigrant status, but it does not admit them. So the conferral of TPS does not make an unlawful entrant (like Sanchez) eligible under §1255 for adjustment to LPR status.”
The Court's core holding on why TPS alone cannot open the door to a green card for someone who entered the country illegally.
How it got here: Immigration authorities denied Sanchez's green-card application; a federal district court ruled in his favor; the Third Circuit reversed; Sanchez asked the Supreme Court to step in and the Court agreed to resolve a split among appeals courts.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Jose Santos Sanchez, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without legal authorization in 1997. After devastating earthquakes struck El Salvador, the US government designated the country for Temporary Protected Status in 2001, and Sanchez obtained TPS, allowing him to live and work in the country legally. In 2014, he applied to become a lawful permanent resident, arguing that his TPS entitled him to be treated as if he had entered legally — a requirement for the green-card process.
The question before the Court
Does having Temporary Protected Status allow someone who entered the United States illegally to apply for a green card (lawful permanent resident status)?
The Court's answer
No — having Temporary Protected Status does not make someone who entered the country illegally eligible for a green card. Federal law requires that a person have been formally "admitted" — meaning they lawfully entered after inspection by an immigration officer — before they can apply for permanent residency. TPS lets a person stay and work in the country legally, but it does not retroactively make their original illegal entry a lawful one.
The Court rejected the argument that TPS, which deems recipients to have "nonimmigrant status" for purposes of the green-card application process, also carries with it a constructive lawful entry. Lawful status and lawful admission are distinct legal concepts, and Congress knows how to grant both together when it chooses to. Because the TPS statute confers only nonimmigrant status without also conferring admission, unlawful entrants with TPS remain ineligible for a green card through this pathway.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
TPS holders from El Salvador, Haiti, and other designated countries who originally entered the US without authorization cannot use their TPS to apply for a green card through the standard adjustment-of-status process. They would need either a separate qualifying basis for permanent residency or a congressional change to the TPS statute to become eligible.
What changes now
Sanchez and his wife remain ineligible for a green card through the §1255 adjustment-of-status process, and TPS holders nationwide who entered the country illegally face the same bar. The decision resolves a split among federal appeals courts that had divided on this question. The opinion notes that pending legislation — the American Dream and Promise Act — would amend the TPS statute to also grant constructive admission, but that change requires congressional action, not judicial interpretation.
What this does not decide
The Court expressly reserved the question of whether a TPS holder who was later officially "paroled" (given temporary permission to enter) upon returning from an authorized trip abroad could use that parole status to qualify for a green card. That argument was not raised by Sanchez and remains open.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court began with the plain text of §1255, the federal provision that allows certain foreign nationals to apply for a green card (lawful permanent resident status) without leaving the US. That provision requires the applicant to have been 'admitted' — a term Congress defined elsewhere as 'the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.' Sanchez entered without inspection, so he was never admitted, and §1255 imposes this admission requirement in two separate places.
- The TPS statute (§1254a(f)(4)) says TPS recipients 'shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant' for purposes of the green-card process. The Court read this as granting only nonimmigrant status — the other prerequisite typically needed to use §1255 — but not the separate admission requirement. The provision helps TPS recipients who have lawful status problems (like overstaying a visa) but does nothing for those whose problem is unlawful entry.
- The Court drew a firm line between 'lawful status' and 'admission,' holding these are distinct concepts in immigration law. A person can be admitted but fall out of lawful status (a student who stays past graduation), and a person can be in lawful status without ever being admitted (someone granted asylum after crossing the border illegally). Sanchez falls in the latter category: TPS lets him remain lawfully, but he was never admitted.
- Sanchez argued that nonimmigrant status and admission are inseparable — that being deemed a nonimmigrant necessarily means being deemed admitted. The Court rejected this by pointing to two existing immigration categories where people hold nonimmigrant status without having been admitted: foreign sailors and crew whose ships land in the US (explicitly stated not to be 'admitted' by statute), and crime-victim visa holders who may receive nonimmigrant status even after an illegal entry.
- The crime-victim ('U') visa provision was especially telling: the green-card statute expressly allows those holders to apply for permanent residency if they were either 'admitted' or 'otherwise provided nonimmigrant status' — showing Congress knows exactly how to extend the pathway to unlawful entrants when it wants to, and used separate, explicit language to do so. Congress gave TPS recipients only nonimmigrant status and said nothing about admission, leaving no basis for the Court to read in eligibility for unlawful entrants.