Why Supreme Court Asylum Status Case Involving Green Card Matters

Asylum cases have become of increasing interest and relevancy for HR professionals as the number of asylum applications filed in the U.S. has risen nearly tenfold in the past five years. An upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case will examine if someone who received asylum, but lost that status after criminal conviction, remains eligible to apply for, and be granted, adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident — that is, a green card holder.

Article: Tips for Managing Green Card Sponsorship Policies

Surge in Asylum Claims

“What was a rare form of employment authorization is now going to be increasingly important, and familiarity with the area for employment verification and compliance is critical,” said Michael Freestone, an attorney with Offit Kurman in Bethesda, Md.

The rise of asylum applications filed in the U.S. can be attributed to ongoing disturbances around the globe and actions by the current administration to end humanitarian parole programs and temporary protected status, according to Freestone. 

The temporary protected status issue made it to the Supreme Court this year and the administration prevailed, he noted. “Ending the humanitarian programs has left many individuals with no choice but to file for asylum or face extreme risks returning home,” Freestone said.

Approximately 877,700 asylum applications were filed in fiscal year (FY) 2025, compared with 911,400 in FY 2024, 514,500 in FY 2023, 266,800 in FY 2022, and only 89,800 in FY 2021, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. “While filings declined slightly from the FY 2024 peak, FY 2025 remained nearly 10 times higher than FY 2021, reflecting a surge in asylum claims before U.S. immigration authorities,” Freestone said.

Asylum is a humanitarian protection available to individuals in the U.S. who can demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a protected ground. A protected ground can include race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. It is similar to admission as a refugee, with the key difference that an asylum seeker is applying for protection while already in the U.S., noted Leon Rodriguez, an attorney with Seyfarth in Washington, D.C. A person granted asylum may live and work in the U.S. and generally becomes eligible to apply for permanent resident after one year.

“Asylum is not rare. Millions of cases are currently pending across U.S. immigration agencies, although approval rates vary significantly by case type and adjudicating authority,” said Miguel Manna, an attorney with Parker Poe in Raleigh, N.C. 

Case Before the Court

In the case before the Supreme Court in its upcoming term, the plaintiff — an Egyptian national — was granted asylum in 2000. 

Years later, he was convicted of third-degree stalking and child endangerment under New York law. An immigration judge terminated the individual’s asylum status, finding the stalking offense to be a “particularly serious crime,” Manna noted. The judge nevertheless concluded that the individual remained eligible to apply for a green card because the asylum statute does not expressly require continuous asylum status. 

The central question is whether a person must currently hold asylum status to adjust status to apply to be a green card holder, or whether a past grant of asylum is sufficient despite a later termination, he said.

The Supreme Court’s answer to this question will resolve a split in the federal courts of appeal, Freestone noted.

Newsletter: Subscribe to Workplace Compliance News

Relevancy to Employers

An employer’s willingness to hire someone with a criminal record is a separate question from immigration eligibility, Freestone observed.

“Some employers may consider applicants with certain prior convictions if they are legally authorized to work and can demonstrate rehabilitation, while some regulated industries or positions involving vulnerable populations may maintain strict disqualification standards,” he said. 

“I think it is fair to say that most criminal convictions that lead to the loss of an immigration benefit are ones that employers might also find as disqualifying for employment processes,” Rodriguez said. “Still there is a wide range of conduct, such as offenses related to minor drug possession or offenses that are remote in time, that could result in loss of immigration status while not necessarily being seen treated as disqualifying by an employer.”

A key lesson from this case for employers is that changes to asylum status and work authorization often occur outside an employer’s view, Manna said. This creates a risk of unknowingly employing an individual who is no longer authorized to work.

Leigh Ganchan, an attorney with Ogletree Deakins in Houston, also said that work authorization and immigration status can change over time, even when an employee originally presented documentation showing indefinite asylee work authorization. 

“Employers generally do not receive automatic notice when an employee’s asylee status ends, but credible information from the employee or a government source may require a careful, nondiscriminatory I-9 verification response,” Ganchan said. “The key is to follow the I-9 process, not assumptions about status.”

She added that employers should keep immigration verification, criminal-history review, and workplace decision-making in their proper lanes.

“HR’s best protection is not extra scrutiny; it is consistent I-9 compliance, careful escalation when credible information arises, and avoiding status-based over-documentation,” Ganchan said. “If criminal history is relevant to employment, the more appropriate frame is a consistent, job-related assessment of the nature of the offense, the time elapsed, and the relationship to the role — not a blanket assumption about immigration status.”

Manna agreed employers should focus on strong I-9 compliance practices, saying that includes: 

• Regular internal audits.
• Timely reverification of temporary work authorization documents.
• Use of E-Verify tools.

“Consistent compliance procedures remain the best safeguard against both immigration and employment-law risks,” he said. 

The Supreme Court’s upcoming term starts Oct. 5.