Immigration Attorney
Immigration Lawyer Immigration Attorney Profile Legendary Stories Criminal Defense
click here to be intstantly connected to an Immigration Attorney click here to send us an email click here to read our blog
Provisional Stateside Waiver
Detained & Criminal Immigration
Defense From Deportation
Family Based Immigration
Marriage to a U.S. Citizen and Removal of Conditions
Non Immigrant Visas
Humanitairian & Special Immigration Programs
Employment Based Immigration
Maintaining Your Residency
Important Links You Need to Know
Resources: Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions
Who We Are
Criminal Law
Find Us
Find Us
View our Offices

3rd & 4th Circuit Courts on Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

Recently the 3rd Circuit and previously the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals have issued precedential decisions pertaining to Temporary Protected Status (TPS).  Both decisions were limiting interpretations of the TPS regulations, thereby reducing the number of foreign national who are eligible for TPS.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which presides over Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina found in Cervantes v. Holder, 597 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2010) that Petitioners, who were minor children, were ineligible for TPS because they could not satisfy the eligibility requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(1)(A).  The Court felt the petitioners could not satisfy the "continuous physical presence" requirement for TPS, and further nor could they prove their "continuous residence" since the TPS designation date.  The Court rejected the notion that applicants only need prove such presence and residence since the "most recent designation" of TPS (which is renewed approximately every 12 to 18 months), and further rejected that the parents' residence is "imputed" on the children.  The theory of "imputation" or "derivative residence," though supported throughout in immigration laws, was rejected by the Fourth Circuit which distinguished between the concept of "domicile" with that of "residence."  The Court found that actual physical residence was actually required and could not be imputed to the child from parent.  Decision below:

Similarly, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals which presides over New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware found that the “continuous residence” requirement cannot be met via imputation from parent to child and that the statutory term “most recent designation” applies to the original designation of a state for TPS and not to subsequent extensions. Petitioners need to personally satisfy the “continuous residence” and “continuous physical presence” requirements for statutorily eligiblity for TPS. Decision below:

Ricky Malik, Esq.


No Comments Posted
8620 Centerville Road, Manassas, VA 20110 7505 New Hampshire Ave. Suite 318 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Watch Us On YouTube View Our LinkIn Profile Click here to subscribe to our Rss Feed

The information on this Virginia Lawyer / Law Firm website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The Law Offices of Ricky Malik, P.C. represents clients in all 50 states of the United States and the World over, including Manassas, VA, Prince William County, Arlington, Fairfax, Centreville, Alexandria, Falls Church, Roslyn, Washington, DC, Loudon County, Lorton, Woodbridge, Virginia, Takoma Park, MD, Langley Park, Bethesda, Rockville, Hyattsville, Montgomery County, Prince George's County, Columbia, and Baltimore, Maryland.