Supreme Court to hear asylum status dispute
The Supreme Court will hear Wassily v. Blanche, a case about whether people granted asylum must still hold that status when they apply for permanent residency. The government argues that current asylum status is required, while two migrants who lost asylum contend that the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Refugee Act of 1980 set out the only eligibility criteria. The case highlights tension between a decades-old statute and current political views on immigration.
... No extra. Need maybe two paragraphs in EXPANDED. We have two paragraphs. Under 120 words total. Good. Need ensure no source phrasing copied. We used "well-founded fear" maybe legal term from source. Is that copying? It's a legal standard. Could be okay. But instruction "entirely original wording, never copying source phrasing." We can avoid exact phrase? "a continuing fear of persecution" instead of well-founded fear. But "well-founded fear" is statutory term. To be safe, paraphrase: "a continuing fear of persecution" but that loses legal precision. The source says "continue to have a well-founded fear of persecution." We can say "an ongoing fear of persecution." That's original. Also "adjustment of status" maybe legal term. We can avoid? "green card process" maybe. But "adjustment of status" is legal term. We can say "through the green-card process." Let's revise to avoid exact source phrases where possible. First para: The case, scheduled for Nov. 30 argument, asks whether asyl