The Supreme Court is set to hear Wassily v. Blanche, a case asking whether a migrant who was granted asylum but later lost that status can still obtain a green card. The dispute turns on a narrow textual question: whether the Immigration and Nationality Act's reference to "any alien granted asylum" implies that the grant must still be in effect at the time of adjustment.
The Justice Department argues that adjustment of status is available only to migrants who currently hold asylum. Two migrants, Tamer Wassily and Byron Velásquez Arreaga, lost asylum after immigration judges found their convictions—stalking and child endangerment for Wassily, and driving while intoxicated for Velásquez Arreaga—to be "particularly serious crimes." They contend that the Refugee Act of 1980 lists all the eligibility criteria and does not add a separate continuing-status requirement.
The source notes that the statutory language has not changed since 1980, even as political and judicial attitudes toward migrants with criminal records have hardened. The court's decision will likely have the greatest impact on people whose asylum was terminated for crimes, including non-violent offenses such as tax fraud or passport mutilation.