When the president signs a bill into law, the words in that law become orders that structure the world. However, the words that constitute a law do not change, even as the world and politics do. A case scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month, Wassily v. Blanche, highlights the tension between a law enacted half a century ago and today’s prevailing political sentiment.
The law in question allows migrants who have been granted asylum to obtain a green card, despite being convicted of certain crimes. To obtain asylum in the United States, migrants may meet a set of requirements, including having a well-founded fear of persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. They must also go through a process that includes several steps.
Asylum and Adjustment of Status
Having received asylum, an asylee can live and work in the United States, but they cannot do so indefinitely unless they become a lawful permanent resident through a process called adjustment of status. The Justice Department claims that migrants must continue to hold asylum status to become permanent residents, while two migrants, Tamer Wassily and Byron Velásquez Arreaga, argue that there is no additional, continuing asylum status requirement.
The Refugee Act of 1980 set out a detailed list of criteria that migrants who have been granted asylum must meet to be eligible for adjustment of status. Federal law currently allows the attorney general to issue a green card to a migrant who has previously been granted asylum, if they have been physically present in the United States for at least one year, haven’t resettled in another country, continue to have a well-founded fear of persecution, and are not excludable from the United States for some other reason.
The dispute centers on whether the law’s wording-referring to asylum as something that was ‘granted’-implicitly requires that a person not have lost that status afterward. Asylum can be revoked for various offenses, including particularly serious crimes, which encompass both violent acts like murder and nonviolent ones such as tax fraud or mutilating a passport.
Related Post: Supreme Court weighs veterans’ benefits law challenges
Impact on Migrants with Criminal Convictions
The Supreme Court’s ruling will most directly affect individuals convicted of a wide range of offenses. One case involves a person found guilty of stalking and endangering a child, while another concerns someone charged with drunk driving and aggravated drunk driving. Immigration judges in both instances ruled these crimes were severe enough to strip their asylum protections.
For most of U.S. history, immigration rules included limited penalties for criminal behavior among migrants, but enforcement was rare. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that Congress began tightening consequences for offenses, partly as part of the broader crackdown on drug-related crimes. The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act allowed deportation for drug convictions, and the 1988 version introduced the term ‘aggravated felony’ into immigration law for the first time.
According to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the eligibility criteria for adjustment of status are clearly outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Act states that an alien who has been granted asylum may be eligible for adjustment of status if they meet certain requirements, including being physically present in the United States for at least one year and continuing to be a refugee under immigration law.
The case of Wassily v. Blanche is scheduled for oral argument on November 30, and the court’s decision is expected to have significant implications for migrants who have been granted asylum and are seeking to become lawful permanent residents. The justices will have to carefully consider the text of the law and its application to the facts of the case, as well as the broader implications of their decision for immigration law and policy. The court’s ruling will be based on the Refugee Act of 1980 and the Immigration and Nationality Act, which govern the eligibility criteria for adjustment of status.
