May 21, 2012

BIA Holds Alien Adjusted Under Cuban Adjustment Act Has Been Admitted and May Be Removed

On December 6th, the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) held in Matter of Espinosa Guillot, 25 I. & N. Dec. 653 (BIA 2011), that an alien who adjusted status to that of a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) pursuant to the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of November 2, 1996, as amended (Cuban Adjustment Act), has been admitted to the U.S. and is subject to removal under INA § 237(a)(2006).

The respondent was paroled into the U.S. in 1995 and later adjusted his status to that of LPR pursuant to the Cuban Adjustment Act. In 2009, he was convicted in Florida of trafficking in cannabis and charged with removability under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) and(B)(i). Relying on the Eleventh Circuit decision in Lanier v. U.S. Atty. Gen., the immigration judge terminated the removal proceedings, finding that the respondent had not been “admitted” to the U.S. and was therefore not removable under INA § 237(a) as an alien who was “in and admitted to the United States.” See 631 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 2011).

The Board, however, found that the Lanier court relied on the particular language of INA § 212(h) and concluded that that holding should not be read to extend to other provisions of the INA. The Cuban Adjustment Act expressly authorizes the adjustment of status of an alien who is a native or citizen of Cuba and who has been “paroled into the United States” to “that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence,” so the plain language of the statute provides that an alien who has not otherwise been admitted may be deemed admitted for permanent residence by operation of adjustment of status. In addition, INA § 237(a) only requires that the alien be “in and admitted to the United States.” Thus, the Board concluded, neither the adjustment statute nor the removal provision applicable in this case includes language similar to the unique term in INA § 212(h). The Board thus sustained the appeal, reinstating the removal proceedings against the respondent.

The full opinion in Espinosa Guillot can be accessed here.

©2002-2012 Fowler White Boggs P.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Author

Shareholder

William J. Flynn, III is the Practice Leader of the International Practice Group.  His practice includes a large immigration practice representing foreign nationals and U.S. corporations that employ foreign nationals. In this capacity, he represents clients before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of State.

813-222-1166

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.