Matter of LEMUS-Losa

Posted by Norka M. Schell, Attorney-at-Law
Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
http://www.lawschell.com/

Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") reaffirms decision that inadmissibility under Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") 212 (a)(9)(B) renders person ineligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i).


The respondent, Miguel Lemus-Losa, is a native and citizen of Mexico who first entered the U.S in 1998 or 1999 and remained in the U.S. for approximately two years. He then returned to Mexico in 2001 and remained there until 2003, at which time he again entered the U.S. and remained. Based on the 2003 unlawful entry, DHS initiated removal proceedings against Lemus-Losa in March 2005. In September 2005, based on an approved Petition for Alien Relative with a priority date of March 30, 1992, Lemus-Losa filed an application to adjust his status under § 245(i). His matter was adjourned until December 2005 to enable him to obtain a current visa priority date. The Board's decision noted that the IJ at that time suggested Lemus-Losa might not be eligible for adjustment based on his accrual of over one year of unlawful presence and subsequent entry within 10 years. At the December hearing the IJ denied a request for a second postponement of the matter, opining that it would be useless as Lemus-Losa was inadmissible under § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) and therefore would not be able to adjust his status under § 245(i). Lemus-Losa appealed to the BIA after the IJ denied his request for reconsideration.

The Board, in dismissing the appeal, began by agreeing with the IJ's findings that Lemus-Losa was inadmissible because he was unlawfully present in the U.S. for two years, voluntarily returned to Mexico for roughly two years, and then entered the U.S. without inspection. Lemus-Losa had argued that the title of § 212(a)(9) is “Aliens previously removed” and as such the provisions do not apply to him because he was not removed but rather voluntarily left the U.S. The BIA rejected the argument however, relying on prior case law which held that “the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text, and it is of use only when it sheds light on some ambiguous word or phrase.”

On Mar. 19, 2012, the Board of Immigration Appeals, after remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reaffirm its prior decision in Matter of Lemus, 24 I &N; Dec. 373 (BIA 2007) that (1) an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States for a period of one year, departs the country, and then seeks admission within 10 years of the date of his or her departure from the United States is inadmissible under the INA 212 (a)(9)(B)(i)(II) [8 USCA 1182(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) (2000) even if the alien's departure was not pursuant to an order of removal and was not a voluntary departure in lieu of being subject to removal proceedings or at the conclusion of removal proceedings and (2) such an alien cannot adjust status under INA 245(i) [8 U.S.C.A. 1255(i)] absent a waiver under the INA 212(a)(9)(B)(v). The BIA nevertheless remanded the matter to the immigration judge to consider two issues: 1. Whether the passage of time has vitiated the respondent's inadmissibility under the INA 212 (a0(9)(B)(i)(II) as it appeared from the record that the respondent departed the United States more than 10 years ago, and 2. Whether as the DHS now contends, the respondent is also inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)[8 U.S.C.A. 1182 (a)(2)(C)(i)(I)] which the BIA found in Matter of Briones 24 I & N Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), would prevent adjustment of status under the INA 245(i).