Supreme Court to weigh whether lost asylum bars green‑card eligibility

The U.S. Supreme Court has set oral argument for Nov. 30 in Wassily v. Blanche. The case asks whether migrants who were granted asylum but later lost that status because of criminal convictions can still adjust to lawful permanent resident status.

Under the Refugee Act of 1980, any alien who has been granted asylum may apply for a green card after one year of physical presence, provided they have not resettled elsewhere, remain admissible, and continue to be a refugee. The Justice Department argues that “currently has asylum status” is required, meaning a loss of asylum blocks adjustment. The petitioners contend the statute only requires that asylum was granted at some point, not that the status persists.

What the law says today

Federal law lets the attorney general terminate asylum if a non‑citizen is convicted of a “particularly serious crime,” a category that includes both violent offenses and non‑violent crimes such as tax fraud. Both plaintiffs—Tamer Wassily and Byron Velásquez Arreaga—were stripped of asylum after convictions (stalking and child endangerment for Wassily; DUI and aggravated DUI for Velásquez Arreaga). An immigration judge later granted Wassily a green card, while another denied Velásquez Arreaga because he no longer held asylum.

Historical context

When Congress passed the Refugee Act, the political climate was less focused on criminality among migrants. Earlier immigration statutes targeted crime narrowly. It wasn’t until the mid‑1980s, with the Anti‑Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, that Congress began linking a broad range of offenses—including “aggravated felonies”—to mandatory detention and deportation. Subsequent amendments have expanded those consequences, raising the stakes for non‑citizens with criminal records.

Practical impact for migrants

Anyone who has been granted asylum and later loses that status because of a conviction may be directly affected by the Court’s ruling. If the justices interpret the text to require ongoing asylum, such individuals could be barred from adjusting to permanent residence, even after meeting the one‑year physical‑presence rule. Conversely, a broader reading would allow them to apply for a green card despite the loss of asylum, provided they meet the other criteria.

There are no immediate deadlines mentioned in the filing, but the case’s outcome could change how immigration judges handle similar petitions and how the Department of Justice advises clients.

When to seek legal help

People who have lost asylum after a criminal conviction should consider consulting an immigration attorney promptly to assess their eligibility for adjustment of status and to prepare for any future court proceedings.

This article is general information based on SCOTUSblog and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 7, 2026.