Alejandra Montesinos Cisneros, a native of El Salvador, faced a significant setback in her immigration journey when the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against her petition for cancellation of removal. The court's decision, issued on July 17, 2026, affects her ability to remain in the United States, highlighting the complexities of immigration law.
The case, docketed as 23-1090, centered on whether Cisneros was considered to have been 'admitted in any status' when she returned to the U.S. on December 14, 1994. This ruling is crucial as it determines her eligibility for cancellation of removal, a form of relief that could allow her to stay in the country legally.
Cisneros's situation is particularly poignant as it underscores the challenges faced by individuals who have lived in the U.S. for extended periods but find themselves entangled in legal disputes regarding their immigration status. The decision not only impacts her but also sets a precedent that could affect many others in similar situations.
Background
Alejandra Montesinos Cisneros first entered the United States in November 1985 without inspection. She later obtained Temporary Protected Status (TPS) due to the unstable conditions in El Salvador. However, when TPS for her country ended in 1992, she was granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) by the U.S. government, allowing her to remain in the country temporarily.
On December 14, 1994, Cisneros returned to the U.S. after traveling abroad, where an immigration officer stamped her passport with 'Admitted' but noted 'DED until Dec. 30, 1994.' Over the years, she traveled back to the U.S. multiple times under similar circumstances, with her immigration status changing as she transitioned to lawful permanent resident status (LPR) in 2006.
However, Cisneros's legal troubles began when she faced criminal charges in Virginia, leading to her being charged with removal under U.S. immigration law. In 2017, she conceded her removability but sought cancellation of removal, arguing that her continuous residence in the U.S. began in 1994 when she was 'admitted.' The immigration judge ruled against her, stating that she had not been 'admitted in any status' at that time.
The Ruling
The Fourth Circuit Court ruled that Cisneros was not 'admitted in any status' when she returned to the U.S. on December 14, 1994. The court emphasized that while she was stamped as 'Admitted,' the DED program does not constitute an immigration status under the relevant law. The ruling stated, 'Even assuming she was 'admitted' by virtue of the officer's stamp when she returned, she was not admitted 'in any status' because DED is not an immigration status.'
The opinion was authored by Judge Richardson, with Judges Agee and Thacker also participating. Judge Thacker dissented, indicating a differing opinion on the interpretation of Cisneros's status at the time of her admission.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Cisneros and others in similar situations. By denying her petition for cancellation of removal, the court has reinforced the interpretation that DED does not provide a legal status that meets the requirements for cancellation of removal under U.S. immigration law. This decision could set a precedent for future cases involving individuals who have relied on DED or similar programs.
For many immigrants, this ruling may serve as a stark reminder of the complexities and challenges within the U.S. immigration system. It highlights the importance of having a recognized immigration status and the potential consequences of legal misinterpretations regarding one's status.
What's Next
Cisneros has the option to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, although it remains uncertain whether the Court will take up the case. Additionally, there may be related cases pending that could further clarify the legal interpretations surrounding DED and similar immigration statuses.