The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument on November 30 in Wassily v. Blanche (Docket No. 25-842), a case testing whether migrants who lost their asylum remain eligible to adjust to permanent residency under a 1980 statute.

What is the federal court being asked to decide?

The justices must resolve whether a migrant must currently hold asylum to seek a green card, or whether once having been granted asylum suffices.

The Justice Department urged the court to take the case. The Immigration and Nationality Act "authorizes adjustment of status only for an alien who currently has asylum status," the solicitor general argued in the government's brief.

The two migrants reject that reading. "[T]here is no additional, continuing asylum status requirement," they told the court in their merits brief.

Why does the dispute turn on a single phrase?

8 U.S.C. §1159 permits the attorney general to adjust the status of "any alien granted asylum" who has been physically present in the United States for at least one year, has not resettled in another country, maintains a well-founded fear of persecution, and is otherwise admissible.

The text frames the qualifying act in the past tense: asylum was "granted." But the law also tells applicants to remain admissible and to continue fearing persecution. The government reads those forward-looking references as implicit requirements that asylum still be held. The migrants read them as parallel eligibility filters, not as a status test.

The original statute, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1980, used the same past-tense phrasing. Lawmakers added an explicit "continues" requirement for the refugee-fear element but did not write a parallel "still holds asylum" condition.

Who are the parties?

Petitioners Tamer Wassily and Byron Velásquez Arreaga both received asylum, then lost it after immigration judges classified their convictions as "particularly serious crimes." That sweeping category under 8 U.S.C. §1158 covers violent offenses like murder and non-violent ones like tax fraud or passport mutilation.

• Wassily was convicted of stalking and child endangerment.
• Velásquez Arreaga was convicted of driving while intoxicated and aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Two immigration judges split on adjustment. One granted Wassily's adjustment to permanent residence. Another denied Velásquez Arreaga, leaving him removable.

How did the legal climate change?

In 1895, Judge Learned Hand of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit called deportation "exile, a dreadful punishment" — especially "to one already proved to be incapable of honest living."

That tone gave way decades later. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 first authorized removal for any drug conviction. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 added the term "aggravated felony" and ordered mandatory detention. Congress then expanded the list repeatedly.

In 2010, the Supreme Court summarized the shift: "[t]hese changes to our immigration law have dramatically raised the stakes of a noncitizen's criminal conviction" (Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 559 U.S. 356).

What does the ruling mean for practitioners?

A government win would mean that asylees whose status was terminated for criminal conduct — or any other ground — lose access to the adjustment pathway. They would face removal despite the original statute's plain text.

A ruling for the migrants would preserve eligibility for former asylees who still meet the §1159 criteria, narrowing the practical consequences of asylum termination for clients whose convictions now trigger removal.

The Supreme Court takes up the dispute on November 30.