•  
  •  
 
Immigration and Human Rights Law Review

Abstract

Beat into “legal limbo” is not how anyone would like to describe their legal situation. But this is exactly where former asylees like Joel Siwe and Tiger Cela have ended up when they were excluded from adjusting to lawful permanent residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 209(b) because of the termination of their asylum status.

In 2001, Joel Siwe was granted asylum on the grounds that he would be persecuted. But within a year of entering the United States, Siwe was convicted of money laundering and sentenced to prison. When Siwe got out, his asylum status was terminated because of the conviction. Siwe argued that he could still adjust his status to lawful permanent residence under INA § 209(b), but the immigration judge disagreed and ordered his removal from the United States. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed and held that Siwe could adjust his status because INA § 209(b) unambiguously does not require a current asylum status.

Almost a decade later, a similar case emerged when an immigration judge denied Tiger Cela’s petition to become a lawful permanent resident after a similar conviction, and he was removed. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit split with its sister circuit and held that INA § 209(b) unambiguously required a current asylum status.

This Note confronts the circuit split, adopts the Fifth Circuit’s position to permit adjustment of status for former asylees under INA § 209(b), and argues for a resolution of the circuit split under a new analysis that considers congressional goals in enacting INA § 209(b).

Download

Share

COinS