Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-315_q713.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

Jose Santos Sanchez is a citizen of El Salvador who has 
lived in the United States for more than two decades.  He 
entered this country unlawfully in 1997—without “inspec-
tion  and  authorization  by  an 
immigration  officer.” 
§1101(a)(13)(A).  Once  here,  he  worked  without  legal  au-
thorization.  In 2001, the Government designated El Salva-
dor  under  the  TPS  program  after  a  series  of  devastating
earthquakes.    Sanchez  obtained  TPS  that  year,  and  has
held it ever since.  In 2014, he applied under §1255 for an
adjustment to LPR status.2 

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
denied  Sanchez’s  LPR  application.  Under  §1255,  the 
agency  stated,  Sanchez  was  ineligible  for  LPR  status  be-
cause  he  had  not  been  lawfully  admitted  to  the  United 
States.  See App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a.  And in the agency’s 
view, his TPS provided no way around that bar.  “Recipients
of TPS,” the agency reasoned, “must still meet the threshold 
requirement” of a lawful entry.  Id., at 46a.  Or said other-
wise: “A grant of TPS does not cure a foreign national’s en-
try without inspection or constitute an inspection and ad-
mission  of  the  foreign  national,”  as  demanded  by  §1255. 
Ibid. 

Sanchez  challenged  the  decision.    The  District  Court 
granted  summary  judgment  in  his  favor,  relying  on  the 
statutory mandate that a TPS recipient “shall be considered 
as” having “lawful status as a nonimmigrant” for purposes
of applying to become an LPR.  See Santos Sanchez v. John-
son,  2018  WL  6427894,  *4  (D  NJ,  Dec.  7,  2018)  (citing 
§1254a(f )(4);  emphasis  deleted).  According  to  the  court, 
that provision requires treating TPS recipients “as though
[they] had been ‘inspected and admitted.’ ”  Ibid.  But the 
Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Third  Circuit  reversed,  holding 
—————— 

2 Sonia Gonzalez, Sanchez’s wife, is also a petitioner here.  She claims 
LPR status derivatively, under a provision “entitl[ing her] to the same
status” as her husband.  §1153(d).  We therefore focus on her husband’s 
application.