crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

  • Home
  • About César
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Book Tour
  • Talks & Media

BIA: Adjustment of Status is admission for purposes of § 212(h) waiver

In a recent decision, the BIA held that a person whose status is adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident has been “admitted” on the date of adjustment for purposes of an INA § 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility. Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. 219 (BIA 2010) (Grant, Malphrus, and Mullane). Board Member Mullane wrote the panel’s decision.

This case involved an individual who entered without inspection, but adjusted his status to that of an LPR on September 24, 2001. Less than three years later Koljenovic was convicted of a fraud offense in Florida. Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. at 219. Koljenovic was placed in removal proceedings when he arrived at a port-of-entry on August 20, 2006. Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. at 219. After conceding removability, Koljenovic applied for a waiver of inadmissibility under INA § 212(h). Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. at 219. The IJ concluded that Koljenovic was not eligible for a § 212(h) waiver “because he was lawfully admitted for permanent residence when he adjusted his status and he did not have the requisite 7 years of lawful permanent residence since the date of his adjustment of status.” Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. at 219-220.

INA § 212(h) waives several crime-related grounds of inadmissibility. The statute, however, bars certain individuals from receiving a waiver: “No waiver shall be granted under this subsection in the case of an alien who has previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if…the alien has not lawfully resided continuously in the United States for a period of not less than 7 years immediately preceding the date of initiation of proceedings to remove the alien from the United States.”

In determining whether adjustment of status constitutes an admission for § 212(h) purposes, the BIA first concluded that the statutory definitions of “admission” and “admitted” provided by INA § 101(a)(13)(A) “do not resolve the meaning of the phrase ‘admitted…as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence’ in section 212(h) of the Act.” Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. at 220. Section 101(a)(13)(A) states: “The terms ‘admission’ and ‘admitted’ mean…the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.”

Having concluded that the INA’s definition of these terms was insufficient to resolve the question presented by Koljenovic’s appeal, the BIA then discussed how it has interpreted adjustment in past cases. “We have consistently construed an adjustment of status as an ‘admission.’” Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. at 221. The Board added that adjustment is a legal fiction through which a person becomes recognized as having been “admitted” without actually having left the country. “‘As we have repeatedly held, an adjustment of status is merely a procedural mechanism by which an alien is assimilated to the position of one seeking to enter the United States,” despite the fact the person seeking adjustment does not have to leave the country and seek admission through the standard consular processing route. Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. at 221.

As such, the BIA “conclude[d] that the respondent’s adjustment of status was an ‘admission’ within the meaning of the Act.” Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. at 221. Koljenovic, therefore, was “admitted” on the date of his adjustment (September 24, 2001) and he was placed into removal proceedings just over five years later (August 20, 2006). Consequently, he lacked the required seven years as an LPR necessary to be eligible for a § 212(h) waiver.

Though this case originated in the Newark, New Jersey Immigration Court—within the Third Circuit—the BIA nonetheless addressed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Martinez v. Mukasey , 519 F.3d 532 (5th Cir. 2008), that seems to directly contradict the BIA’s position. “In that case, the alien was admitted after inspection as a nonimmigrant visitor and subsequently adjusted his status to that of a lawful permanent resident under section 245A of the Act.” Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. at 223. The BIA distinguished Martinez by emphasizing that the non-citizen in Martinez had been admitted at some point (though as a nonimmigrant), whereas Koljenovic, who entered without inspection, had never been admitted. Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. at 223. “Indeed,” the BIA added, “if we were to literally apply the Fifth Circuit’s holding to this case, the respondent would have no admission date at all.” Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. at 223. As such, the BIA elected not to use Martinez as a guide.

  • Share via Facebook
  • Share via LinkedIn
  • Share via Twitter
  • Share via Email

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Posted by César on May 4, 2010 on 10:00 am 6 Comments
Filed Under: Board of Immigration Appeals, waiver

Comments

  1. Cheap Oakley Split Jacket says

    July 19, 2013 at 11:48 am

    Cheap Oakley Split Jacket

    Today YouTube video clips quality is more superior and improved, thus that the motive that I am watching this video at here.

    Reply
  2. Replica Oakley Fuel Cell says

    July 26, 2013 at 9:10 pm

    Replica Oakley Fuel Cell

    crImmigration.com: BIA: Adjustment of Status is admission for purposes of § 212(h) waiver

    Reply
  3. Cheap Oakley Sunglasses says

    July 31, 2013 at 12:01 pm

    Cheap Oakley Sunglasses

    crImmigration.com: BIA: Adjustment of Status is admission for purposes of § 212(h) waiver

    Reply
  4. xxsaonqlyt says

    March 7, 2014 at 1:19 am

    xxsaonqlyt

    Agree with your words. Hope you can keep update your post. I wanna back. thx!

    Reply
  5. maillot saison 2013 2014 says

    March 10, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    maillot saison 2013 2014

    I like Your Write-up about Why We Keep an eye on | J Squared Consulting Ideal just what I was looking for!

    Reply
  6. nouveau maillot du psg 2014 says

    March 12, 2014 at 9:10 pm

    nouveau maillot du psg 2014

    seeing the inspirational video clips i am really shocked. thank you extremely considerably for the blog. You have completed an outstanding work

    Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Immigration, Nativism & Race in the United States
  • Border Patrol apprehensions, 1925-2020
  • Supreme Court says gap in conviction records hurts migrant
  • Abolish ICE
  • Federal court enjoins 100-day deportation pause
  • ICE issues enforcement priorities

Search

Social Media

Blawg 100 Honoree

The information contained on these pages must not be considered legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This work by www.crImmigration.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.