Leymis Velasquez v. William P. Barr

<p>United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1148 ___________________________ Leymis Carolina Velasquez; Sandra Ortiz lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellees v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States; Chad F. Wolf, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Robert M. Cowan, Director, National Benefits Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Leslie Tritten, Director, St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Lee Cissna, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Donald Neufeld, Associate Director, Service Center Operations, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants ------------------------------ American Immigration Council; American Immigration Lawyers Association; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project lllllllllllllllllllllAmici on Behalf of Appellee(s) ___________________________ No. 19-2130 ___________________________ Gilma Geanette Melgar; Aurelia Concepcion Martinez lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellees v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States; Chad F. Wolf, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Lee Cissna, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Donald Neufeld, Associate Director, Service Center Operations, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Robert M. Cowan, Director, National Benefits Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Leslie Tritten, Director, St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. Department of Homeland Security lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants ------------------------------ American Immigration Lawyers Association; American Immigration Council; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project lllllllllllllllllllllAmici on Behalf of Appellee(s) ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: February 13, 2020 Filed: October 27, 2020 ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ KELLY, Circuit Judge. -2- In these consolidated cases, Appellants (collectively, the government) appeal the district courts’1 adverse grants of summary judgment. These cases present the same question of statutory interpretation: whether a noncitizen who entered this country without inspection or admission but later received Temporary Protected Status (TPS) may adjust her status to Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR), when an LPR application requires the noncitizen to have been “inspected and admitted” into the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The district courts in both cases decided the answer is yes: a TPS recipient is deemed “inspected and admitted” and so may adjust her status. After considering the statutory scheme at issue, we affirm. I. Background These cases concern two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): the designation of TPS under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a, and the adjustment of status to LPR under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The first provision, § 1254a, authorizes the Attorney General to grant TPS to noncitizens from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disaster, or other extraordinary circumstances. 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(1)(A)–(B). Individuals with TPS receive temporary protection from removal and authorization to work. Id. § 1254a(a)(1)–(2). TPS has other positive consequences. Relevant here, “for purposes of adjustment of status under section 1255,” a TPS beneficiary “shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant.” Id. § 1254a(f)(4). The second provision, § 1255, governs the adjustment of status to LPR. As a threshold matter, § 1255 requires an applicant to have ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4800531/leymis-velasquez-v-william-p-barr/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on Beware.org, it is strongly advised to avoid Leymis Velasquez v. William P. Barr in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Leymis Velasquez v. William P. Barr. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike Beware.org, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Leymis Velasquez v. William P. Barr is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.


>