ADMISSION A noncitizen is admitted if the following conditions are met: A noncitizen who meets these two requirements is admitted, even if the person obtained the admission by fraud. Likewise, the noncitizen is admitted, even if the CBP officer performed a cursory inspection. As long as the noncitizen meets the procedural requirements for admission, the noncitizen meets the inspected and admitted requirement for adjustment of status. Any type of admission can meet the inspected and admitted requirement, which includes, but is not limited to, admission as a nonimmigrant, an immigrant, or a refugee. See INA 101(a)(13)(A) (“The terms ‘admission’ and ‘admitted’ mean, with respect to an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.”). Legislative history does not elaborate on the meaning of “lawful.” Evidence of Admission An Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94), including a replacement when appropriate, is the most common document evidencing a noncitizen’s admission. The following are other types of documentation that may be accepted as proof of admission into the United States: When inspected and admitted to the United States, the following nonimmigrants are exempt from the issuance of an Arrival/Departure Record: False Claim to Citizenship Cannot be an Admission/Inspection A noncitizen who gains admission to the U.S. upon a knowing false claim to U.S. citizenship cannot be deemed to have been inspected and admitted. See Matter of Pinzon (PDF), 26 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2013). Deferred Admission Deferred inspection is a form of parole. A noncitizen who is deferred inspection is paroled into the United States for the period of time necessary to complete the inspection. See 8 CFR 235.2(c). For more information on deferred inspection, see Subsection 3, Parole [7 USCIS-PM B.2(A)(3)].

The Definition of “Admission” and “Seeking Admission” in Immigration Law Section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [codified as 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(A)] [PDF version] defines “admission” and “admitted” to mean: “with respect to an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection or authorization by an immigration officer.” 101(a)(13)(B) specifically excludes aliens who have been paroled into the United States or alien crewmen who have been permitted to temporarily land in the United States. 101(a)(13)(C) states that an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence (LPR) status shall not be regarded as seeking admission into the United States unless he or she: i. has abandoned or relinquished that status, ii. has been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days, iii. has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States, iv. has departed from the United States while in the midst of removal [see article] or extradition proceedings, v. has committed an offense that renders him or her inadmissible under criminal and related grounds [see article] as defined in section 212(a)(2), unless he or she has been granted relief [see section] under section 212(h) or section 240A(a), or vi. is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United States after inspection or authorization by an immigration officer. When is the Entry of an Inadmissible Alien an Admission? The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and federal courts have had to address whether a person who is inspected and authorized to enter, but was in fact inadmissible at the time of entry, should be considered “admitted.” This distinction has a significant effect on adjustment of status eligibility as well as eligibility for other immigration benefits and relief. The primary question is whether “admission” relies upon procedural regularity alone (that is, nothing more than “inspection and authorization”) or whether it relies upon the underlying legality of the entry. Under the first reading- which both the BIA and multiple circuit courts have accepted — the underlying legality of the entry is not (with a limited exception [see section]) relevant to admission. If “admission” did rely upon the entry being legal, “inspection and authorization” would be necessary, but not sufficient, for admission. Special Case: Entry Under False Claim of U.S. Citizenship In 2013, the BIA limited Matter of Quilantan [PDF version] with its decision in Matter of Pinzon [PDF version].6 In Matter of Pinzon, the BIA held that an alien who enters the United States by falsely claiming U.S. citizenship is not considered to have been inspected by an immigration officer, and thus cannot be considered to have been admitted under section 101(a)(13)(A). The BIA noted in Matter of Pinzon that because an immigration officer is not empowered to inspect a U.S. citizen, a person who enters under the false claim of U.S. citizenship “effectively eludes the procedural regularity of admission.” This decision was consistent with the 1975 Supreme Court decision in Reid v. INS [PDF version], which held that entry under a false claim of citizenship constitutes EWI. Distinguishing the Precedents with Regard to Reinstatement of Removal The statute regarding reinstatement of removal [see article] presents an interesting question with regard to procedurally legal entries that are otherwise illegal. In order for a prior removal order to be reinstated, an alien must commit an “illegal reentry.” In a 2011 case argued before the Tenth Circuit, Cordova-Soto v. Holder [PDF version], a woman who would have otherwise been subject to reinstatement of removal argued that based upon Matter of Quilantan [PDF version], she had not reentered the United States illegally because her admission had been procedurally regular. However, the Eleventh Circuit was unpersuaded, and limited the BIA’s holding in Matter of Quilantan. It held that a procedurally regular entry that is otherwise illegal is an “illegal reentry” for purpose of reinstatement of removal. The Eleventh Circuit held that the issue with regard to reinstatement of removal is not whether the alien was “admitted,” but whether the entry was legal. In a similar vein, the Ninth Circuit cited favorably Cordova-Soto v. Holder [PDF version] and distinguished its holding in Hing Sum v. Holder [PDF version] with regard to reinstatement of removal in its 2013 decision, Tamayo-Tamayo v. Holder [PDF version]. Fifth Circuit also adopted this position in 2014 in an unpublished decision, Avalos Martinez v. Johnson [PDF version].

BIA CASE LAW REGARDING ADMISSIONS Matter of Chavez-Alvarez, 26 I&N Dec. 274 (BIA 2014) (1) Adjustment of status constitutes an “admission” for purposes of determining an alien’s removability under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2012), as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony “at any time after admission.” Matter of Rosas, 22 I&N Dec. 616 (BIA 1999), reaffirmed. (2) An element listed in a specification in the Manual for Courts-Martial (“MCM”), which must be pled and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, is the functional equivalent of an “element” of a criminal offense for immigration purposes. (3) The crime of sodomy by force in violation of article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 925 (2000), and the Punitive Articles of the MCM relating to sodomy, is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16 (2012) within the definition of an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F)(2012). Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. 219 (BIA 2010) An alien who entered the United States without inspection and later obtained lawful permanent resident status through adjustment of status has “previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” and must therefore satisfy the 7-year continuous residence requirement of section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (2006), to be eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility. Matter of Quilantan, 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010) For purposes of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2006), an alien seeking to show that he or she has been “admitted” to the United States pursuant to section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A) (2006), need only prove procedural regularity in his or her entry, which does not require the alien to be questioned by immigration authorities or be admitted in a particular status. Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980), reaffirmed.