{"id":517,"date":"2026-08-14T14:13:12","date_gmt":"2026-08-14T14:13:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517"},"modified":"2026-08-14T14:13:12","modified_gmt":"2026-08-14T14:13:12","slug":"understanding-the-courts-next-major-case-on-asylum-seekers-wassily-v-blanche","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517","title":{"rendered":"Understanding the court\u2019s next major case on asylum seekers: Wassily v. Blanche"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This coming term, in Wassily v. Blanche<\/em>, the Supreme Court will decide whether asylum beneficiaries are barred from obtaining lawful permanent residency if their asylum status has been terminated. Wassily<\/em> is of considerable significance. While the termination of asylum status once was relatively uncommon, recent policy changes by the Trump administration have exposed far more immigrants to the risk of this.<\/p>\n

Read more Who exactly are the \u201cfriends of the court\u201d?<\/a><\/p>\n

The legal dispute in Wassily<\/em>, which has divided the federal courts, dates back to unclear language in the . The Refugee Act laid the framework for the modern asylum system and defined legal standards for asylum officers, immigration judges, and other immigration adjudicators. The act used precise, detailed language in crafting the refugee process for noncitizens outside<\/em> of the United States, but Congress left internal<\/em> asylum procedures more undefined, with less statutory guidance. Over time, asylum claims increased dramatically, making unclear statutory gaps more and more troublesome.<\/p>\n

Indeed, that lack of statutory clarity is front and center in Wassily<\/em>. The Refugee Act specified that refugees processed outside the United States could only obtain a permanent resident green card if their refugee \u201cadmission has not been terminated.\u201d By contrast, the act was unclear whether that same requirement also applied to asylees who had obtained asylum status from within the United States. For asylees applying to \u201cadjust\u201d to permanent resident status, as codified at 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1159(b), the Refugee Act did not mention termination at all. Instead, the act only said that the immigration official \u201cmay\u201d grant the green card for \u201cany alien granted asylum\u201d who met the admissibility requirements. The act did not say whether \u201cgranted asylum\u201d meant anyone who previously<\/em> had been granted asylum or whether that phrase was limited to those with a current<\/em> asylum status.<\/p>\n

Tamer Wassily left his native Egypt and entered the United States in 1993. He was granted asylum in 2000 based on his claim of persecution in Egypt as a Coptic Christian. Later, he was convicted of stalking and child endangerment, at which point the DHS sought to terminate his asylum status before an immigration judge. The immigration judge agreed and terminated this based on the finding that Wassily\u2019s stalking conviction was a \u201cparticularly serious crime.\u201d But the immigration judge found him eligible to adjust to a green card because the immigration statute did not contain \u201can explicit requirement\u201d of current asylum status.<\/p>\n

Byron Velasquez Arreaga entered the United States in 1995 and was granted asylum. He later was convicted of multiple crimes for driving while intoxicated. The DHS sought to terminate his asylum status and scheduled an immigration court hearing. The immigration judge terminated his asylum status for particularly serious crimes. In contrast to Wassily\u2019s immigration judge, this immigration judge found that without a current asylum status, Velasquez Arreaga could not adjust status to a green card and he was ordered removed to his native country of Guatemala.<\/p>\n

The parties appealed both cases. The Board of Immigration Appeals weighed in on the statutory confusion in a precedent decision: Matter of T-C-A-<\/em>. The BIA interpreted the statute as meaning that only a noncitizen with current asylum status could adjust to permanent resident status. In Wassily\u2019s appeal, the BIA relied on Matter of T-C-A-<\/em>. It found that Wassily\u2019s terminated asylum status made him ineligible for adjustment to a green card. The BIA also found Velasquez Arreaga ineligible for adjustment.<\/p>\n

In tandem cases for Wassily and Velasquez Arreaga, a with the majority of circuits that only noncitizens with current asylum status were eligible for asylee adjustment. The 2nd Circuit concluded that the statutory phrase \u201cgranted asylum\u201d was best understood to require a current asylum \u201cstatus\u201d \u2013 a legally significant term as used by Congress. The panel majority said its reading was \u201cbuttressed\u201d by statutory context, including the Immigration Act of 1990. That act explicitly created a time-restricted exception that allowed some noncitizens to apply for green cards \u201cregardless of whether or not such asylum has been terminated.\u201d The circuit reasoned that this limited exception, as a \u201cstatutory note,\u201d did not create a general rule that noncitizens could apply for permanent residency after termination.<\/p>\n

In dissent, Judge Beth Robinson adopted the minority view of the circuits on this \u201cdifficult\u201d statutory question. She reasoned that the asylee adjustment statute meant that \u201cany\u201d noncitizen was eligible to adjust who previously had been granted asylum. Under Robinson\u2019s view, the absence of the word \u201cstatus\u201d from the statutory provision must have been an intentional omission by Congress.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in June to review the statutory question of whether terminated asylees are eligible to apply for adjustment to permanent residency. In , Wassily and Velasquez Arreaga argue that the statutory text and context are clear that any noncitizen who was \u201cgranted asylum\u201d previously can seek permanent residence after termination. They interpret \u201cgranted\u201d as a past tense verb, and they contend that the omission of \u201cstatus\u201d in the statutory language must be given effect because Congress knew how to include such a requirement.<\/p>\n

Read more The transformation of Supreme Court arguments<\/a><\/p>\n

As broader statutory context, Wassily and Velasquez Arreaga emphasize the adjacent Section 1159(c), which allows for a discretionary \u201cwaiver\u201d of other requirements for the noncitizen\u2019s admissibility. According to them, it would be \u201cstrange\u201d to interpret the statute as \u201ccategorically\u201d stripping the attorney general of that discretionary authority where the asylee\u2019s status has been terminated.<\/p>\n

Wassily and Velasquez Arreaga also invoke the rule of lenity \u2013 the canon that a statutory ambiguity should be construed in favor of the noncitizen. They claim that lenity is especially paramount after the Supreme Court\u2019s 2024 decision in , which eliminated the doctrine of Chevron<\/em> deference to a federal agency\u2019s (here, the BIA\u2019s) reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.<\/p>\n

In an atypical move where only the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Circuits so far have looked at this issue, that the Supreme Court should grant review. Even so, the solicitor general maintains that the 2nd Circuit was correct in interpreting asylee adjustment as limited to noncitizens with current asylum status. The government says that Congress\u2019 intent is best understood as giving effect to the termination of asylum \u201cstatus\u201d as a bar to obtaining a green card. The solicitor general relies on the statutory note in the Immigration Act of 1990 as evidence that Congress only excepted a small subset of asylees from the general rule barring terminated asylees from adjustment of status.<\/p>\n

Without citing Loper Bright<\/em>, the government disputes that the rule of lenity is applicable here at all. The solicitor general argues that the discretionary waiver at Section 1159(c) does not undermine the most natural reading of asylee adjustment because \u201cthe decision to terminate is itself discretionary\u201d and the court should give effect to that waiver authority.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s resolution of this case could impact the interests of the millions of asylum applicants with cases pending in the immigration courts and asylum offices, as well as those persons granted asylum status in recent years. Even if the Supreme Court narrowly frames this case as a discrete statutory question, it will clarify the effect of the government\u2019s termination authority for anyone granted asylum. This is especially timely: that it would \u201ccomprehensively re-review\u201d asylum approvals from \u201chigh-risk\u201d countries since entry in 2021. At the end of that review, the DHS could elect to terminate asylum status. In June 2026, a the DHS re-review policy, but the government is challenging that ruling.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s not all. The case also could have broader implications for federal administrative law if the justices take an interest in the parties\u2019 arguments about the government\u2019s discretionary authority or Loper Bright<\/em>. The Supreme Court has not yet relied on Loper Bright<\/em> in deciding an immigration case. In fairness, the 2nd Circuit found no need to do so, and the Supreme Court avoided a similar issue in , <\/em>a case that concerned the judicial standard of review for asylum \u201cpersecution\u201d determinations. But that does not mean the court will continue to let this issue linger.<\/p>\n

Disclosure<\/strong>: When he was at the DOJ, the author litigated <\/em>Wassily before the 2nd Circuit. He no longer has any involvement in the case or its litigation before the Supreme Court.<\/em><\/p>\n

Read more Once upon a time: storytelling in Learning Resources v. Trump<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This coming term, in Wassily v. Blanche, the Supreme Court will decide whether asylum beneficiaries are barred from obtaining lawful permanent residency if their asylum status has been terminated. Wassily is of considerable significance. While the termination of asylum status once was relatively uncommon, recent policy changes by the Trump administration have exposed far more […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":158,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary","category-scotus-outside-opinions"],"yoast_head":"\nUnderstanding the court\u2019s next major case on asylum seekers: Wassily v. Blanche - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Understanding the court\u2019s next major case on asylum seekers: Wassily v. Blanche - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This coming term, in Wassily v. Blanche, the Supreme Court will decide whether asylum beneficiaries are barred from obtaining lawful permanent residency if their asylum status has been terminated. Wassily is of considerable significance. While the termination of asylum status once was relatively uncommon, recent policy changes by the Trump administration have exposed far more […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-14T14:13:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=517#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=517\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"Understanding the court\u2019s next major case on asylum seekers: Wassily v. Blanche\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-14T14:13:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=517\"},\"wordCount\":1396,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=517#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/61552ae28ae2c989530a8c6d5f6404d6.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Commentary\",\"SCOTUS OUTSIDE OPINIONS\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=517#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=517\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=517\",\"name\":\"Understanding the court\u2019s next major case on asylum seekers: Wassily v. Blanche - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=517#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=517#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/61552ae28ae2c989530a8c6d5f6404d6.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-14T14:13:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=517#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=517\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=517#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/61552ae28ae2c989530a8c6d5f6404d6.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/61552ae28ae2c989530a8c6d5f6404d6.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=517#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Understanding the court\u2019s next major case on asylum seekers: Wassily v. Blanche\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Understanding the court\u2019s next major case on asylum seekers: Wassily v. Blanche - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Understanding the court\u2019s next major case on asylum seekers: Wassily v. Blanche - American Service Review","og_description":"This coming term, in Wassily v. Blanche, the Supreme Court will decide whether asylum beneficiaries are barred from obtaining lawful permanent residency if their asylum status has been terminated. Wassily is of considerable significance. While the termination of asylum status once was relatively uncommon, recent policy changes by the Trump administration have exposed far more […]","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-08-14T14:13:12+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"Understanding the court\u2019s next major case on asylum seekers: Wassily v. Blanche","datePublished":"2026-08-14T14:13:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517"},"wordCount":1396,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/61552ae28ae2c989530a8c6d5f6404d6.jpg","articleSection":["Commentary","SCOTUS OUTSIDE OPINIONS"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517","name":"Understanding the court\u2019s next major case on asylum seekers: Wassily v. Blanche - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/61552ae28ae2c989530a8c6d5f6404d6.jpg","datePublished":"2026-08-14T14:13:12+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/61552ae28ae2c989530a8c6d5f6404d6.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/61552ae28ae2c989530a8c6d5f6404d6.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=517#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Understanding the court\u2019s next major case on asylum seekers: Wassily v. Blanche"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/517","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/517\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/158"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}