Understanding the court’s next major case on asylum seekers: Wassily v. Blanche

The useful part

While the termination of asylum status once was relatively uncommon, recent policy changes by the Trump administration have exposed far more immigrants to the risk of this. The legal dispute in Wassily, which has divided the federal courts, dates back to unclear language in the Refugee Act of 1980. Act laid the framework for the modern asylum system and defined legal standards for asylum officers, immigration judges, and other immigration adjudicators.

How it works

• The act used precise, detailed language in crafting the refugee process for noncitizens outside of the United States, but Congress left internal asylum procedures more undefined, with less statutory guidance.
• Over time, asylum claims increased dramatically, making unclear statutory gaps more and more troublesome.
• For asylees applying to "adjust" to permanent resident status, as codified at 8 U.S.C.

Details worth keeping

Indeed, that lack of statutory clarity is front and center in Wassily. § 1159(b), the Refugee Act did not mention termination at all.