Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following decision:Sanchez v. Mayorkas, No. 20-315: The immigration laws provide a path under 8 U.S.C. §1255 for a “nonimmigrant” – a foreign national lawfully present in the United States on a designated, temporary basis – to obtain an “[a]djustment of status” to become a lawful permanent resident (“LPR”). Petitioner Jose Santos Sanchez applied for LPR status under §1255.

In 2001, Sanchez obtained Temporary Protected Status, making his presence in the United States lawful despite his initial unlawful entry. Sanchez petitioned for an adjustment of status to become a Lawful Permanent Resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 in 2014. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his petition, concluding that because that statute requires a petitioner be lawfully admitted to the United States, an original lawful entry was a threshold requirement for an adjustment of status under that statute.

s in the first instance. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, on the basis that the Court should not have issued a summary disposition, but instead should have had the case fully briefed and argued to the Court.View the Court's decision.Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in two cases:Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising, No. 20-1029: This case addressing the City of Austin’s regulation of digitized signs presents the question of whether the city code’s distinction between on- and off-premise signs is a facially unconstitutional content-based regulation under Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015)?Patel v. Garland, No. 20-979: Whether 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review of non-discretionary determinations underlying the determination of the Board of Immigration Appeals that petitioner is inadmissible to the United States for permanent residence and therefore ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. §1255(i).

This case is used to cement that a K Visa holder can only adjust based on their relationship with their K Visa Petitioner. It goes further than previous cases (Markovki v Gonzales and Choin v Mukasey) and establishes that when a person enters the US on a K Visa, marries their K Visa Petitioner, and then adjusts to conditional status, they are still ineligible from adjustment based on any means other than their K Visa Petitioner; citing 8 USC Section 1255(a), 8 USC Section 1101(a)(15)(K). The court draws conclusions from these regulations that an alien only fulfills the requirements of a K visa when they become LPR without conditions (after receiving CLPR and then filing I-751 to remove conditions).

CEL is a restaurant established by defendant Augusta Foods, LLC (“Augusta”), with majority stock holder being defendant Wendy’s International (“Wendy’s”). Plaintiffs alleged, that in exchange for weekly payroll deductions, defendants CEL, August and Wendy’s agreed to arrange to file and prosecute the employees’ Applications for Alien Employment certification (“Applications”) under The Life Act Amendments of 2000, 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (i) (1) (B) and (C) (the “Life Act”). The Life Act enabled certain aliens to apply for an adjustment to permanent resident status, provided the Application was submitted by April 30, 2001.