Wassily v. Blanche
No. 25-842 · October Term 2026 · Civil Rights · argument November 30, 2026
Expected vote 6–3 for Wassily. Chance of a unanimous ruling 43%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
Tamer Wassily, an Egyptian national whose asylum was terminated due to criminal convictions, is challenging the government's decision that he is ineligible to apply for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that individuals whose asylum has been terminated are categorically ineligible for LPR status. The Supreme Court must now decide whether noncitizens whose asylum was granted but later terminated can still be considered eligible for LPR status under federal immigration law.
- Does the phrase "granted asylum" in 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b) refer to the historical fact of having received asylum, or to the current possession of asylum status?
- How should statutory ambiguities in immigration law be interpreted, particularly when they concern pathways to permanent residency for individuals who previously held asylum?
- What is the impact of a "particularly serious crime" determination on an individual's eligibility for LPR status, even if they were once granted asylum?
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
The asylum laws offer protection against removal for certain noncitizens in this country who suffered past persecution or reasonably fear future persecution in their country of nationality. For those “ granted asylum, ” the immigration laws also provide a pathway to obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b), the government "may adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence the status of any alien granted asylum," if certain statutory criteria are satisfied. The question presented is: Whether noncitizens who were "granted asylum," but whose asylum was later terminated, are eligible for adjustment to LPR status under Section 1159(b) (as the Fifth Circuit held), or are categorically ineligible (as the Second and Fourth Circuits held)?
Facts of the case (Oyez)
Tamer Wassily, a native and citizen of Egypt, entered the United States on a visitor visa in 1993 and stayed after it expired. In removal proceedings, he applied for asylum, saying he faced persecution in Egypt because of his Coptic Christian faith, and the government granted him asylum in 2000. In 2004, a New York court convicted him of third-degree stalking and child endangerment. Citing those convictions, the Department of Homeland Security moved to reopen his case and end his asylum. An immigration judge terminated Wassily’s asylum after treating his stalking conviction as a “particularly serious crime”—a category of offense that can strip a person of asylum—and ordered him removed to Egypt. After an earlier round of appeals, the immigration judge again ended his asylum but decided he could still apply to become a lawful permanent resident, and approved that application. The Department of Homeland Security appealed. While the appeal was pending, the Board of Immigration Appeals adopted the view that only a person who currently holds asylum can take that step, and it concluded that Wassily could not, because his asylum had already been terminated. Wassily petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for review, and the appeals court denied his petition.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Civil Rights cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often prioritizes clear statutory text and administrative deference. His vote may hinge on whether the plain language of "granted asylum" implies a continuing status or a past event, and the level of deference owed to the Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretation. | 63% Wassily | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 248 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas typically adheres to originalism and textualism, focusing on the precise meaning of statutory language at the time of enactment. He will likely scrutinize the historical understanding of "granted asylum" and may be less inclined to defer to agency interpretations that he views as exceeding statutory bounds. | 52% Wassily | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Civil Rights · 464 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito often takes a strict view of statutory interpretation and may lean towards a reading that limits benefits for noncitizens, especially those with criminal records. His decision could depend on whether he views the statute as clearly precluding LPR status for those whose asylum has been terminated. | 57% Wassily | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Civil Rights · 244 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often considers the practical impact of legal interpretations on individuals, particularly in immigration cases, and may favor readings that provide pathways to relief. She might look for ambiguities in the statute that allow for a more lenient interpretation regarding eligibility for LPR status. | 68% Wassily | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 61% Civil Rights · 192 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often seeks to understand the legislative intent behind statutes and may consider the broader purpose of the asylum and LPR adjustment provisions. She might explore whether Congress intended to create a permanent bar for individuals whose asylum was terminated, or if the statute allows for a more nuanced approach. | 68% Wassily | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 60% Civil Rights · 171 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a proponent of textualism and may focus on the precise wording of "granted asylum" without relying on legislative history or policy considerations. His vote could turn on whether he finds the statutory language unambiguous in either direction. | 63% Wassily | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 99 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often emphasizes clear statutory language and may also consider the practical implications of different interpretations for the immigration system. He might look for a balance between the plain meaning of the text and the overall structure of immigration law. | 63% Wassily | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 64% Civil Rights · 83 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett typically adheres to textualist principles, focusing on the ordinary meaning of the statutory text. Her analysis will likely center on whether the phrase "granted asylum" unambiguously refers to a past event or a present status, without extraneous policy considerations. | 63% Wassily | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 72% Civil Rights · 61 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often considers the historical context and purpose of statutes, as well as the potential for disparate impacts of legal interpretations. She may explore whether the statute's intent was to create a permanent bar or if there is room for discretion in cases where asylum was previously granted. | 70% Wassily | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 47% Civil Rights · 38 votes | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.