The Supreme Court will take up a dispute over whether immigrants who lose their asylum designation can still become lawful permanent residents, granting review in the case Wassily v. Blanche. A ruling from the Supreme Court will settle the matter nationwide.
At the heart of the matter is a gap in the Refugee Act of 1980, the law that established the U.S. asylum framework. For refugees admitted from abroad, the statute explicitly requires that their admission not have been revoked before they can receive a green card. But for asylees already inside the country, the law is silent on that point. The key provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b), says the immigration official “may” grant permanent residency to “any alien granted asylum” who is otherwise admissible, without spelling out whether that phrase covers someone whose asylum was later revoked or only someone who currently holds the status.
Two separate cases are now before the high court. Tamer Wassily, a Coptic Christian originally from Egypt, received asylum in 2000. Years later, after convictions for stalking and child endangerment, the Department of Homeland Security moved to strip his asylum status. An immigration judge agreed, classifying the stalking offense as a “particularly serious crime,” but nonetheless concluded that Wassily could still apply for a green card because the law lacks “an explicit requirement” that asylum status be active at the time of adjustment.
Byron Velasquez Arreaga’s situation took a different turn. A Guatemalan national who was granted asylum in 1995, he saw his status revoked following multiple drunk-driving convictions. His immigration judge came out the other way, determining that without a current asylum designation he was ineligible for adjustment and ordering his deportation to Guatemala.
The Board of Immigration Appeals tried to settle the confusion with a precedent-setting ruling in Matter of T-C-A-, holding that only those with an active asylum status may adjust to permanent residency. Applying that decision to both men, the BIA found them ineligible.
When the cases reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, a divided panel sided with the majority of other circuits, concluding that “granted asylum” implies a present, ongoing status. The majority pointed to the Immigration Act of 1990, which carved out a narrow, time-limited pathway for certain noncitizens to seek green cards “regardless of whether or not such asylum has been terminated.” That exception, the panel reasoned, was not meant to establish a broader right to post-termination adjustment.
Judge Beth Robinson dissented, embracing the minority interpretation. She noted that the statute refers to “any” noncitizen who had been granted asylum, suggesting that revocation alone does not foreclose adjustment. In her view, Congress’s decision not to include the word “status” was deliberate.
In their Supreme Court filing, Wassily and Velasquez Arreaga press the point that the statutory language is unambiguous. They argue that “granted” functions as a past-tense verb, so anyone who once received asylum qualifies, and that the absence of “status” must carry meaning. They also cite Section 1159(c), which permits a discretionary waiver of admissibility requirements, and call it “strange” to read the statute as stripping the attorney general of that discretion entirely when asylum has been revoked.
The stakes are rising as asylum revocations become more common under recent Trump administration policies, making the circuit split on this question increasingly consequential.