Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

motionregulationvisaadmissibility
motionregulationvisaadmissibility

Related Cases

Coral Way Management LLC v. Cucinelli
View Case »
Qiu v. Chertoff
View Case »
Arden Wood, Inc. v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
View Case »
Snapnames.com v. Chertoff
View Case »
Aslam; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Man v. Barr

Facts

Philip Man, a non-citizen, sought to adjust his immigration status after being convicted under California Health and Safety Code 11359 for drug trafficking. His conviction categorized him as inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which led to the denial of his application for adjustment of status. Man subsequently filed multiple motions to reopen his removal proceedings to seek a waiver of inadmissibility for a U visa, which were also denied by the BIA.

Man acknowledges that his petition with respect to adjustment of status is controlled by Roman-Suaste v. Holder, 766 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2014). There, we held that convictions under California Health and Safety Code ('CHSC') 11359 categorically constitute drug trafficking aggravated felonies under the INA.

Issue

Did the Immigration Judge have the authority to grant a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii) to a non-citizen already in the United States seeking a U visa?

In removal proceedings commenced against a non-citizen after the non-citizen has already entered the country, does an IJ have the authority to grant the non-citizen a U visa waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii)? The answer to that question is no.

Rule

The court ruled that the authority to grant waivers of inadmissibility under the INA is limited to non-citizens seeking admission to the United States, and that Immigration Judges do not have the authority to grant such waivers to individuals already present in the country.

The regulations do not give Immigration Judges authority to grant a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act to a petitioner for U nonimmigrant status who is in the United States.

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory framework of the INA and concluded that the BIA's interpretation was reasonable. It noted that the regulations do not grant Immigration Judges the authority to adjudicate waiver requests for U nonimmigrant status for individuals already in the United States. The court referenced previous cases and the BIA's interpretation in Matter of Khan, which established that the authority to grant waivers is limited to specific circumstances that did not apply to Man's case.

The Board's denials of his motions to reopenthe latter of which was issued after Matter of Khan and relied explicitly on the Board's reasonable interpretation of the INAwere not 'arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.'

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the BIA's decisions, denying Man's petitions for review of both the adjustment of status application and the motions to reopen his removal proceedings.

We therefore deny Man's petitions for review of the denials of his two requests to reopen his removal proceedings.

Who won?

The government prevailed in this case as the court upheld the BIA's decisions, affirming that Man's conviction rendered him inadmissible and that the BIA correctly denied his requests to reopen his removal proceedings.

The Board held that Man's conviction under CHSC 11359, therefore, rendered him inadmissible, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), and ineligible for adjustment of status, 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).

You must be