Does the Supreme Court’s New Border Decision Affect Your Green Card or Citizenship Case?

If you’ve been following the news, you have probably seen headlines about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Otro Lado, Inc., et al. Like many immigration stories, the headlines make it sound as though the decision changes everything for everyone. Fortunately, for most immigrants in the U.S., it does not.

Whenever the Supreme Court issues a major immigration decision, it is natural for people to wonder whether it affects their own case. Clients are already asking me whether this decision will affect their case. For most of my clients, who have family based petitions and Naturalization applications pending with USCIS, the answer is reassuring: probably not.

Although Department of Homeland Security v. Otro Lado is an important decision, it primarily affects individuals who are outside the United States seeking asylum at a land port of entry. For families pursuing lawful immigration through marriage, parents, children, fiancé visas, adjustment of status, or naturalization, the decision does not change the legal standards governing those cases.

One of the things that makes immigration law so confusing is that there isn’t just one immigration system. Family-based immigration, employment-based immigration, asylum, removal proceedings, and naturalization all follow different statutes and procedures. A significant court decision in one area of immigration law often has little or no effect on the others.

Although our office does not handle asylum cases, this decision has generated tremendous attention, and several clients have already asked whether it changes the rules for marriage-based green cards, family petitions, adjustment of status, or naturalization. Fortunately, for most families pursuing lawful immigration through these channels, the answer is no.

One of the things that makes immigration law so confusing is that there is not just one immigration system. Family-based immigration, employment-based immigration, asylum, removal proceedings, and naturalization all operate under different sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act and often follow very different legal rules. A significant court decision in one area of immigration law does not necessarily change every other area.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

In Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Otro Lado, Inc., et al., the Supreme Court considered whether individuals who are standing outside the United States at a land port of entry have a statutory right to begin the asylum process before they have actually entered the country. In simple terms, the Court concluded that they do not.

The Court held that individuals who are physically outside the United States—even if they are waiting at a designated port of entry—have not yet “arrived in the United States” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As a result, the federal statutes governing asylum do not require U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to begin processing an asylum claim before the individual has entered the United States. In practical terms, the decision gives the federal government broader authority to determine when people outside the United States may begin the asylum process. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Court’s reasoning, the decision is significant because it clarifies when certain statutory protections begin under federal immigration law.

Does This Affect Family-Based Immigration?

For most people pursuing family-based immigration benefits, the answer is no. If you are applying for a marriage-based green card, petitioning for your spouse, parent, child, or sibling, adjusting status from within the United States, completing consular processing through a U.S. embassy or consulate, or applying to become a United States citizen, this decision does not change the legal standards governing your case. USCIS will continue applying the same eligibility requirements that existed before this decision. The Supreme Court’s ruling does not change what must be proven to establish a bona fide marriage, qualify for adjustment of status, satisfy the Affidavit of Support requirements, or become eligible for naturalization.

Why Should Family-Based Immigrants Still Pay Attention?

Although this case focuses on asylum at the border, I believe it illustrates an important principle that applies throughout immigration law:

Where you are physically located can dramatically affect the legal rights, procedures, and immigration options available to you.

That principle appears throughout the immigration system.

The legal options available to someone who is already inside the United States are often very different from those available to someone applying from abroad. Likewise, the procedures governing a person seeking admission at a port of entry differ from those governing someone who has already been admitted into the country or who is applying for benefits through USCIS. This would include individuals who were in the U.S. and then travelled abroad and are seeking to re-enter the U.S. with a non-immigrant visa or even a green card. Those distinctions can determine not only which immigration benefits are available, but also which government agency has jurisdiction, what procedural protections apply, and what legal remedies may exist if something goes wrong.

Don’t Assume Every Immigration Headline Applies to Your Case

One lesson I hope people take away from this decision is that immigration law is incredibly fact-specific. Lately it seems that every week there is another court decision, executive order, agency policy, or news story about U.S. immigration. Some of those developments fundamentally change the law. Others affect only a relatively small group of applicants.

This Supreme Court decision is a good example. It is unquestionably an important case, but it primarily concerns asylum seekers who are outside the United States attempting to seek admission at the border. It does not rewrite the rules governing family-based immigration, adjustment of status, or naturalization. That is why it is important to evaluate legal developments in the context of your own immigration case rather than relying solely on headlines, social media, or online discussions. One of the most valuable parts of working with an experienced immigration attorney is having someone help separate the immigration news that truly affects your case from the news that does not.

Schedule a Consultation

If you have questions about how recent developments in immigration law may affect you or your family, I would be happy to review your situation. Every immigration case is different, and obtaining individualized legal advice is often the best way to avoid unnecessary delays, costly mistakes, or misunderstandings.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration laws, regulations, and government policies change frequently, and the outcome of every case depends upon its specific facts. If you have questions about your own immigration matter, you should consult with a qualified immigration attorney.

About the Author

Sean D. Hummel is a Florida immigration attorney serving clients throughout the United States and around the world. His practice focuses on family-based immigration, adjustment of status, consular processing, waivers, permanent residence, and naturalization. The Law Offices of Sean D. Hummel is located in Deerfield Beach, Florida.