The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Wassily v. Blanche, which involves whether noncitizens who receive asylum but whose asylum is later terminated can become lawful permanent residents or are instead always ineligible. The case, docketed as 25-842, will be argued in the coming term and carries significant implications for immigration practitioners advising asylum recipients on adjustment eligibility.
What changed
The case asks whether noncitizens seeking adjustment to lawful permanent resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b) must maintain their current asylum status or whether noncitizens may adjust even if their asylum status has been terminated. The two named plaintiffs are Tamer Wassily and Byron Velasquez Arreaga, individuals from Egypt and Guatemala, respectively, who were admitted to the United States on asylum and later convicted of crimes, after which immigration authorities began separate removal proceedings and focused on stripping them of their asylum rights.
The Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that petitioners Tamer Wassily and Byron Velasquez Arreaga could not adjust to lawful permanent resident status because their asylum status had been terminated, holding that the plain text of 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b) allows only noncitizens with current asylum status to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. The Second Circuit’s ruling created a circuit split on this threshold question, prompting the Supreme Court to intervene.
Why it matters
This case resolves a critical ambiguity in asylum law that affects how you counsel clients whose asylum may be revoked. The case addresses potential limits of 8 U.S.C. section 1159(b), which offers an alien the possibility, if the government chooses, to “adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” Circuits are split on whether they can adjust after asylum termination.
If the Supreme Court affirms the Second Circuit’s position—that only current asylum holders may adjust—the practical effect is that asylum recipients convicted of crimes cannot “pivot” to permanent residency status as an alternative to deportation. This narrows the discretionary relief available and changes your filing strategy for affected clients. Conversely, if the Court reverses, prior asylum status (even if revoked) could preserve adjustment eligibility, dramatically altering deportation exposure for a substantial population.
Way forward
-
Review client files now if you represent or have represented asylum holders with criminal convictions or removal proceedings pending. Identify anyone whose asylum has been terminated and for whom adjustment has not yet been adjudicated, as the timing of this Supreme Court decision may affect their case trajectory.
-
Monitor the Supreme Court docket for oral argument scheduling. Once the case is argued, expect a decision by late June 2027; that ruling will be binding on all USCIS adjudicators, immigration judges, and the BIA immediately upon release.
-
Prepare alternative strategies for clients ineligible to adjust under the current BIA interpretation. Depending on facts, consider whether your client might qualify for cancellation of removal, voluntary departure, or prosecutorial discretion relief while the Court case is pending.
-
Document current asylum status carefully in client matters. Preservation of asylum status (or written notice of its termination and grounds) may become dispositive once the Supreme Court clarifies the statutory language.
Disclaimer
This article is informational and does not constitute legal advice. folaform.com is a plain-English reference tool operated by a software company, not a law firm. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney to evaluate your specific situation and verify current guidance against the primary source. Immigration policy can change without notice, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case—when issued—will supersede all prior agency positions. Visit https://www.supremecourt.gov to review the official docket and https://www.scotusblog.com for expert case analysis.