The U.S. Supreme Court will decide this upcoming term whether noncitizens whose asylum status has been terminated remain eligible to apply for lawful permanent residency. The case, *Wassily v. Blanche*, centers on a disagreement over the interpretation of the Refugee Act of 1980 and how it governs the process for asylees to "adjust" their status to receive a green card.
The dispute stems from differing language in the 1980 law regarding refugees processed outside the U.S. versus asylees granted status within the country. While the Act explicitly states that refugees outside the U.S. cannot get a green card if their admission is terminated, it does not include the same specific language for asylees. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b), the law states officials "may" grant permanent residency to "any alien granted asylum" who meets admissibility requirements, but it does not specify if the individual must currently hold that status.
The case involves Tamer Wassily and Byron Velasquez Arreaga, both of whom were granted asylum in the 1990s but later had their status terminated by immigration judges following criminal convictions. In a consolidated ruling, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held that "granted asylum" implies a requirement of current status. The court cited the Immigration Act of 1990, which created a narrow, time-restricted exception for certain individuals to apply for green cards regardless of termination, as evidence that a general bar on terminated asylees exists.
The scale of the impact is tied to recent shifts in enforcement. In December 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a "comprehensive re-review" of asylum approvals from "high-risk" countries for entries dating back to 2021, which could lead to an increase in status terminations. Although a federal district court vacated this policy in June 2026, the government is currently appealing that decision. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the government would mean any asylee who loses their status during such reviews would be "categorically" ineligible for a green card, according to the petitioners.
Furthermore, the case may clarify the application of the "rule of lenity," which suggests ambiguous laws should be interpreted in favor of noncitizens. This is particularly relevant following the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in *Loper Bright v. Raimondo*, which ended *Chevron* deference—a practice where courts deferred to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law. The Court granted certiorari in June 2026 and is expected to hear arguments in the upcoming term; however, a specific date for a final decision has not been reported.