Matter of Stockwell On November 21, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it had updated its Policy Manual (PM) in a policy alert titled “Adjustment on New Basis After Termination of Conditional Permanent Residence” [PDF version]. An alien who is admitted to the United States as a conditional permanent resident is barred from pursuing adjustment of status under section 245(a) while he or she is in conditional permanent resident status. See INA 245(d). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held in 1991 that this bar does not apply to an alien who was admitted to the United States as a conditional permanent resident status but whose conditional permanent resident status was terminated. Matter of Stockwell, 20 I&N Dec. 309 (BIA 1991). The USCIS’s new guidance is designed to ensure uniformity in the USCIS’s handling of adjustment applications filed by aliens who were admitted as conditional permanent residents but whose conditional permanent resident status was subsequently terminated. The Board began by noting that INA 245(d) was added to the INA as part of the Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, part of what it described as “a comprehensive statutory scheme to deter immigration-related marriage fraud.” Section 216 itself, the Board explained, “was designed to check the validity of marriages and to ensure that aliens could not sidestep the immigration laws by entering into a fraudulent marriage.” The INS codified regulations to implement the section 245(d) bar at 8 CFR 245.1(b)(12) (1991). The regulation, in the pertinent part, stated that “[a]ny alien who is already an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on a conditional basis pursuant to section 216 of the Act” was barred from adjustment under INA 245(a). The Board found that it was clear that Congress intended for any alien in conditional permanent resident status to be ineligible for adjustment of status. Regarding the open question of aliens whose conditional permanent resident status was terminated, the Board agreed with the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that the bar was only intended to apply “to aliens currently holding conditional permanent resident status.” The Board agreed with the Immigration Judge’s finding the regulatory language dispositive, and noted that the INS had omitted any mention of the regulation in its arguments. The Board subsequently affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision granting the respondent’s application for adjustment of status in the exercise of discretion. Relevant Statutes An alien who obtains permanent resident status on the basis of marriage to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, and that alien’s derivative sons or daughters, is admitted to the United States as a permanent resident on a conditional basis. INA 216(a)(1). An alien who obtains status as an alien entrepreneur (employment-based fifth preference) and his or her derivative spouse and/or children is also admitted as a permanent resident on a conditional basis. INA 216A(a)(1). Conditional permanent residents must subsequently petition to have the conditions on their status removed. The requirements for having conditions removed are different for spouses (see INA 216) and entrepreneurs (see INA 216A). A conditional permanent resident under INA 216 or INA 216A may not adjust status on an alternative basis under INA 245(a). See INA 245(d); 8 CFR 245.1(c)(5). The statutes do not address the ability of an alien who was admitted as a conditional permanent resident, but whose status was subsequently terminated, to adjust status under INA 245(a). In the next section, we will examine how the BIA resolved this question. New USCIS Guidance on Adjustment for Former Conditional Permanent Residents The new USCIS guidance on adjustment cases involving aliens who were admitted as conditional permanent residents is found at 7 USCIS-PM B.7(G) [PDF version]. The PM notes that under statutes and regulations, an alien admitted in conditional permanent resident status is not permitted to adjust status under INA 245(a) while holding such status. Instead, the alien must comply with section 216 (family cases) or 216A (entrepreneur cases) to pursue the removal of conditions from his or her permanent resident status. However, in accord with Matter of Stockwell, the PM explains that this prohibition on adjustment only applies when the alien is currently in lawful conditional permanent resident status. Under Matter of Stockwell, “the bar no longer applies if USCIS terminates the alien’s [conditional permanent resident] status.” The USCIS may terminate an alien’s conditional permanent resident status for any of the reasons stated in INA 216 (family cases) or 216A (entrepreneur cases). The USCIS generally issues a Notice to Appear upon terminating an alien’s conditional permanent resident status. The PM states that although an immigration judge may review the termination of conditional permanent resident status in an alien’s subsequent removal proceedings, the USCIS’s position is that the bar to adjustment of status found in 245(d) becomes ineffective upon the USCIS’s decision to terminate conditional permanent resident status. Therefore, “it is not necessary that an immigration judge have affirmed USCIS’ decision to terminate the alien’s [conditional permanent resident] status before the alien may file a new adjustment application.” In accord with the statutes, regulations, Matter of Stockwell, and the USCIS’s interpretation of the foregoing, an alien whose conditional permanent resident status has been terminated may adjust status under INA 245(a) if: The alien has a new basis for adjustment;The alien is otherwise eligible to adjust; andUSCIS has jurisdiction over the adjustment application. The USCIS makes clear that an alien must have a new basis for adjustment of status. That is, “the alien may not reuse the immigrant petition associated with the previous [conditional permanent resident] adjustment or admission.” An alien initially admitted as a K nonimmigrant fiancé(e) may only re-adjust status on the basis of an approved Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, filed by the same U.S. citizen who filed the Form I-129F Petition for Alien Fiancé(e), on his or her behalf. The PM adds that the alien must be otherwise eligible for adjustment of status, including by not being inadmissible or barred from adjustment under INA 245(c). In short, the alien must meet the generally applicable requirements for adjustment. If the USCIS grants the former conditional permanent resident’s adjustment application, it “generally considers the date of admission to be the date USCIS approved the

Fraud & Misrepresentation Ground of Inadmissibility Inadmissibility for fraud or misrepresentation under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (2018). Willful Misrepresentation Matter of O-M-O-, 28 I&N Dec. 191, 196 (BIA 2021) Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455, 1465 (2017) Matter of MENSAH, 28 I&N Dec. 288 (BIA 2021) Link to case Materiality of a Statement See Matter of Munroe, 26 I&N Dec. 428, 430 (BIA 2014). Matter of MENSAH, 28 I&N Dec. 288 (BIA 2021) Link to case Authority to Inquire into Bona Fides of Marriage at Adjustment of Status See MARRIAGE FRAUD for more on this. Matter of Bosuego Matter of Bosuego, 17 I&N Dec. 125 (BIA 1979, 1980) In Matter of Bosuego, the Board concluded that the materiality requirement in former section 212(a)(19) was satisfied if one of the following was true: 1. “The alien is excludable on the true facts”; or 2. “The misrepresentation tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien’s eligibility and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that he be excluded.” Id. at 127. Matter of Y-L- Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151, 159 (BIA 2007) [PDF version] Matter of D-R- Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445 (BIA 2011) (“Matter of D-R- 2011”) [PDF version] Matter of KAGUMBAS, 28 I&N Dec. 400 (BIA 2021) An Immigration Judge has the authority to inquire into the bona fides of a marriage when considering an application for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2018). FULL DECISION FRAUD/MISREPRESENTATION WAIVER

AGGRAVATED FELONIES BIA CASE LAW Accessory After the Fact Matter of Batista, 21 I&N Dec. 955 (BIA 1997) (1) The offense of accessory after the fact to a drug-trafficking crime, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3 (Supp. V 1993), is not considered an inchoate crime and is not sufficiently related to a controlled substance violation to support a finding of deportability pursuant to section 241(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(B)(i) (1994). (2) The respondent’s conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3 establishes his deportability as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony under section 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act,because the offense of accessory after the fact falls within the definition of an obstruction of justice crime under section 101(a)(43)(S) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.A. §1101(a)(43)(S) (West Supp. 1997), and because the respondent’s sentence, regardless of any suspension of the imposition or execution of that sentence, “is at least one year.” Alien Smuggling Matter of Alvarado-Alvino, 22 I&N Dec. 718 (BIA 1999) An alien convicted of an offense described in section 275(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (Supp. II 1996), is not convicted of an aggravated felony as that term is defined in section 101(a)(43)(N) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(N) (Supp. II 1996), which specifically refers to those offenses relating to alien smuggling described in sections 274(a)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, 8U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) and (2) (Supp. II 1996). Arson Matter of Bautista, 25 I&N Dec. 616 (BIA 2011) Attempted arson in the third degree in violation of sections 110 and 150.10 of the New York Penal Law is an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(i) (2006), even though the State crime lacks the jurisdictional element in the applicable Federal arson offense. Matter of Vasquez-Muniz, 23 I&N Dec. 207 (BIA 2002), followed. Matter of Palacios, 22 I&N Dec. 434 (BIA 1998) An alien who was convicted of arson in the first degree under the law of Alaska and sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment with 3 years suspended was convicted of a “crime of violence” within the meaning of section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(F) (Supp. II 1996), and therefore is deportable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (Supp. II 1996), as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. Burglary Matter of Perez, 22 I&N Dec. 1325 (BIA 2000) (Burglary of a Vehicle) The offense of burglary of a vehicle in violation of section 30.04(a) of the Texas Penal Code Annotated is not a “burglary offense” within the definition of an aggravated felony in section 101(a)(43)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(G) (Supp. IV 1998). Commercial Bribery Matter of Gruenangerl, 25 I&N Dec. 351 (BIA 2010) The crime of bribery of a public official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(A) (2006) is not an offense “relating to” commercial bribery and is therefore not an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(R) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(R) (2006). Conspiracy Matter of Richardson, 25 I&N Dec. 226 (BIA 2010) (1) The term “conspiracy” in section 101(a)(43)(U) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U) (2006), is not limited to conspiracies that require the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy by one of the conspirators. (2) An alien who was only convicted of conspiracy to commit an aggravated felony and is removable on the basis of that conviction under section 101(a)(43)(U) of the Act may not also be found removable for the underlying substantive offense, even though the record of conviction shows that the conspirators actually committed the substantive offense. Controlled Substances Matter of Ferreira, 26 I&N Dec. 415 (BIA 2014) Where a State statute on its face covers a controlled substance not included in the Federal controlled substances schedules, there must be a realistic probability that the State would prosecute conduct under the statute that falls outside the generic definition of the removable offense to defeat a charge of removability under the categorical approach. Matter of L-G-H-, 26 I&N Dec. 365 (BIA 2014) Sale of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)(1) of the Florida Statutes, which lacks a mens rea element with respect to the illicit nature of the substance but requires knowledge of its presence and includes an affirmative defense for ignorance of its unlawful nature, is an “illicit trafficking” aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) (2012). Matter of Flores, 26 I&N Dec. 155 (BIA 2013) The offense of traveling in interstate commerce with the intent to distribute the proceeds of an unlawful drug enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(1)(A) (2006) is not an “aggravated felony” under section 101(a)(43)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) (2006), because it is neither a “drug trafficking crime” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006) nor “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance.” Matter of Davis, 20 I&N Dec. 536 (BIA 1992), followed. Matter of Castro-Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 698 (BIA 2012) An alien convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute under State law has the burden to show that the offense is not an aggravated felony because it involved a “small amount of marihuana for no remuneration” within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(4) (2006), which the alien may establish by presenting evidence outside of the record of conviction. Matter of Aruna, 24 I&N Dec. 452 (BIA 2008), clarified. Matter of Sanchez-Cornejo, 25 I&N Dec. 273 (BIA 2010) The offense of delivery of a simulated controlled substance in violation of Texas law is not an aggravated felony, as defined by section 101(a)(43)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) (2006), but it is a violation of a law relating to a controlled substance under former section 241(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(B)(i) (1994). Matter of Aruna, 24 I&N Dec. 452 (BIA 2008) Absent

Arriving Alien BIA Cases Matter of Gonzalez Romo, 26 I&N Dec. 743 (BIA 2016) Within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a returning lawful permanent resident who has a felony conviction for solicitation to possess marijuana for sale is inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) (2012), even though that section refers only to attempt and conspiracy to commit a crime involving moral turpitude, and is therefore properly considered to be an arriving alien under section 101(a)(13)(C)(v) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) (2012). Matter of Vo, 25 I&N Dec. 426 (BIA 2011), clarified. Matter of E-R-M- & L-R-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 520 (BIA 2011) (1) Section 235(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) (2006), does not limit the prosecutorial discretion of the Department of Homeland Security to place arriving aliens in removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (2006). (2) The fact that an Immigration Judge has no jurisdiction over applications for adjustment of status under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of November 2, 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161, as amended, does not negate his or her jurisdiction over the removal proceedings of arriving Cuban aliens under section 240 of the Act. Matter of Oseiwusu, 22 I&N Dec. 19 (BIA 1998) (1) An alien who arrives in the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole is an “arriving alien,” as that term is defined in the federal regulations. (2) According to the regulations, an Immigration Judge has no authority over the apprehension, custody, and detention of arriving aliens and is therefore without authority to consider the bond request of an alien returning pursuant to a grant of advance parole. Matter of R-D-, 24 I&N Dec. 221 (BIA 2007) (1) An alien who leaves the United States and is admitted to Canada to seek refugee status has made a departure from the United States. (2) An alien returning to the United States after the denial of an application for refugee status in Canada is seeking admission into the United States and is therefore an arriving alien under 8 C.F.R. § 1001.1(q) (2007).

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.

The Circuit Court with jurisdiction over the geographical location of the Immigration Court will control. See Matter of Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 693 (BIA 2023). For choice of law purposes, the controlling circuit law in Immigration Court proceedings is the law governing the geographic location of the Immigration Court where venue lies, namely where jurisdiction vests and proceedings commence upon the filing of a charging document, and will only change if an Immigration Judge subsequently grants a change of venue to another Immigration Court. Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 74 (BIA 2020), clarified.

INS v. St. Cyr 一 The Suspension Clause of the Constitution, which protects the privilege of the habeas corpus writ, requires some judicial intervention in deportation cases. Habeas courts have answered questions of law in challenges to executive interpretations of immigration law and questions of law arising in the discretionary relief context. Papageorgiou v. Gonzales 一 The REAL ID Act permits all foreign nationals, including those with criminal convictions, to obtain review of constitutional claims and questions of law upon filing a petition for review of a final removal order with an appropriate court of appeals. However, due process challenges to summary BIA affirmances of removal orders lack merit. Enwonwu v. Chertoff 一 By adjusting the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, Congress can effectively strip disfavored classes from full access to justice and thereby restrict or extinguish individual rights and liberties.