CA6 on TPS, Adjustment of Status: Flores v. USCIS

CA6 on TPS, Adjustment of Status: Flores v. USCIS

"This case illustrates the archaic and  convoluted state of our current immigration system. While many suggest that immigrants should simply “get in line” and pursue a legal pathway to citizenship, for Saady Suazo and other similarly situated Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries, the Government proposes that there is simply no line available for them to join. The law does not support such a conclusion in this case. ... We interpret the statute exactly as written—as allowing Suazo to be considered as being in lawful status as a nonimmigrant for purposes of adjustment of status under § 1255. ... Policy considerations support our interpretation. Mr. Suazo seems to be the exact type of person that Congress would have in mind to allow adjustment of status from TPS beneficiary to LPR. He has been in the United States for about fifteen years. He has roots here. His wife and minor child are here. They are both United States citizens. He is of good moral character and a contributing member of society. He has waited his turn for an independent, legal, and legitimate pathway to citizenship, through the immediate relative visa application. If the statutes are interpreted as the Government argues they should be, the result would be absurd. The Government is essentially telling him that he is protected and can stay here, but that he will never be allowed to become an LPR, even for an independent basis. Under the Government’s interpretation, Mr. Suazo would have to leave the United States, be readmitted, and then go through the immigration process all over again. This is simply a waste of energy, time, government resources, and will have negative effects on his family—United States citizens. We are disturbed by the Government’s incessant and injudicious opposition in cases like this, where the only purpose seems to be a general policy of opposition for the sake of opposition. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment as to the APA claim and REMAND the case to the USCIS for review." - Flores v. USCIS, June 4, 2013.  [Hats way off to Abraham Kay!]