• Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Family Immigration
    • Marriage
    • Employment Visas
    • H-1B Visas
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
    • Labor Certifications
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Attorneys
    • Philip M. Levin, Managing Partner
    • Don L. Pangilinan, Associate
    • Saja A. Raoof, Of Counsel
    • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

Philip Levin & Associates

Immigration Law

800-974-2691       
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Family Immigration
    • Marriage
    • Employment Visas
    • H-1B Visas
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
    • Labor Certifications
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Attorneys
    • Philip M. Levin, Managing Partner
    • Don L. Pangilinan, Associate
    • Saja A. Raoof, Of Counsel
    • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

BIA Holds That In Removal Proceedings Arising Within The Jurisdiction Of The Fifth And Ninth Circuits, One Who Was “Waved Through” A Port Of Entry Has Established An Admission “In Any Status” Within The Meaning Of INA §240A(a)(2). Tula-Rubio v. Lynch, 787 F.3d288 (5th Cir. 2015) And Saldivar v. Sessions, 877 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2017) Followed In Those Jurisdictions Only. In Proceedings In All Other Circuits, To Establish Continuous Residence In The U.S. For 7 Years, One Must Prove That He Or She Possessed Some Form Of Lawful Immigration Status At Admission.

March 17, 2018 Philip Levin

On January 29, 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) held, in a disputed 2-1 decision, that it would recognize “wave through” entries as evidence of an admission –as per Matter of Quilantan, 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010) – “in any status” for purposes of proving eligibility for cancellation of removal proceedings under INA §240A(a)(2), i.e., meeting the requirement that an applicant “has resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status”, only in cases falling within the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits.  In proceedings outside these two courts, held the opinion, one must prove that he or she had some type of lawful immigration status at admission to establish the necessary 7 years of continuous residence after admission “in any status,” despite a vociferous concurring and dissenting opinion by Board Member Pawley to the contrary.

The respondent, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. in October 1991, adjusted status in April 2003, and was served with a Notice to Appear (NTA) in January 2010 alleging removability under INA §212(a)(6)(E)(i) for smuggling or attempting to smuggle another person into the country.  She applied for cancellation under INA §240A(a); the Immigration Judge (IJ) pretermitted the application on the ground she did not establish continuous residence in the U.S. for 7 years after having been admitted in any status. She claimed a “wave through” entry in 1998, relying on Matter of Quilantan for the proposition that this entry constitutes an admission in any status and that she therefore began to accrue continuous residence under INA §240A(a)(2) after that date.  The IJ disagreed, holding that Quilantan only applies to applications for adjustment of status (AOS), so that her 1998 entry did not equate to an “admission” as contemplated by the cancellation statute.  He further held that she began accruing residence when she adjusted in 2003 and that it was terminated by service of the NTA in January 2010, 3 months short of 7 years.

In initiating its analysis, the BIA first cited to Matter of Quilantan, noting that under that precedent one who enters after having been “waved through” at a port of entry has been “admitted” for purpose of an INA §245(a) AOS application.  Overruling the IJ, the Board agreed that Quilantan governs “admissions” for purposes of §240A(a)(2), finding that respondent had, in fact, been “admitted” under §240A(a)(2).  

The one remaining issue, cotinued the opinion, was whether a “wave through” entry qualifies as an admission “in any status”under INA §240A(a)(2).  Citing to Tula-Rubio v. Lynch, 787 F.3d288 (5th Cir. 2015), respondent argued that the term “status” includes unlawful status and the word “any” should be read broadly to include all who have been admitted.  After oral argument in this case, noted the BIA, the Ninth Circuit, in whose jurisdiction it arises, agreed with Tula-Rubio v. Lynch in Saldivar v. Sessions, 877 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2017).  DHS contended that “admitted in any status” requires that one prove not only admission, but “admission attained by means of some lawful status”.

Although both parties argued that §240(a)(2) is unambiguous on the question of whether a “wave through” constitutes admission in any status, the BIA held that it is ambiguous in this regard.  As such, the Board noted that the fact that Congress included the phrase “admitted in any status” in 240A(a)(2) while §245(a) only requires that one be “inspected and admitted”, making no mention of “status”, suggests that it intended to give the statutes different meanings.  Therefore, reading both laws to require only a procedurally regular “admission” would render the phrase “in any status” meaningless; if Congress had intended §240A(a)(2) to only require inspection and admission, “it would have used the same language as section 245(a).” The BIA thus concluded that Congress was signaling that 240A(a)(2) requires something more than a procedurally regular “admission”.

The opinion next analyzed §240A(a)(2)’s predecessor statute, INA §212(c), to garner insight into congressional intent, finding that under all former interpretations of that section relief was only afforded to those who possessed a lawful status at entry.  Additionally, noted the Board, the legislative history of IIRIRA (1996) indicates that Congress intended to limit §240A(a)(2) eligibility to those who had been lawfully admitted, an interpretation confirmed at the time by “Government officials” within the former INS.  The BIA thus held that the phrase “admitted in any status” requires that one have possessed “some form of lawful status at the time of admission”, which prevents possible abuse of this type of relief; respondent’s argument in this regard, stated the decision, would essentially relieve an applicant “of the statutory burden of establishing that he or she has satisfied all the eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal” under §240A(a)(2).

The Board also expressly disagreed with the holding of the Fifth and Ninth Circuits that one can be admitted in an unlawful status, concluding that interpreting “admitted in any status” to require that one be admitted in some form of lawful immigration status does not create the same inconsistencies with other statutory provisions, as noted in Quilantan, because §240A(a)(2)’s language is different from that of §245(a).  It is the view of these two circuits, stated the BIA, that, has created the statutory conflicts or inconsistencies.  The Board further disputed the Fifth and Ninth Circuits‘ holding that the use of “lawfully admitted” in 240(a)(2) but not in 245(a) indicates congressional intent that the latter applies to those admitted in an unlawful status; it merely clarifies that §240A(a)(2) requires than an applicant make a physical admission at a port of entry, but not that he or she obtained the status of “an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” at that admission.  Thus, the Board held, it will only adhere to Tula-Rubio and Saldivar in cases arising in those circuits.  Applicants in all other circuits “must show that they possessed some form of lawful immigration status at the time of admission” to establish they were “admitted in any status” under §240A(a)(2).  As a result, because the Ninth Circuit has concluded that a “wave through” entry qualifies as an “admission in any status”, the BIA remanded the record to the IJ for further consideration of respondent’s cancellation eligibility and for entry of a new decision.

In a fairly lengthy and cogently-argued concurring and dissenting opinion, Board Member Pauley concluded that the Fifth and Ninth Circuits had “arrived at the correct result”, agreeing with the majority that a “wave through” admission must result in some lawful status in that no immigration officer intends to grant entry to one he or she believes has no lawful status.  The question for Board Member Pauley was, if the respondent was waved through, whether she was “admitted in any status” for purposes of cancellation eligibility.  Dissenting from the opinion’s holding that in all circuits but the Fifth and Ninth, applicants must prove some lawful status at admission, he termed the majority’s finding “dicta, depending on how one regards it” and stated that it is based on the mistaken premise that such lawful status must be later identified.  Further, the “generous nature” of §240A(a)(2)’s requirements make it unlikely that Congress intended to require the identification of a lawful status at entry; the holding, he also noted, is inconsistent with Quilantan’s primary finding that a “wave through” is an admission under INA §101(a)(13)(A).  Matter of Castillo Angulo, 27 I&N Dec. 194 (BIA 2016).

Learn more about the immigration services provided by Philip Levin & Associates.

Filed Under: Blog

Contact Us

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recent Blog Posts

  • Because The Identity Of The Drug Involved Is An Element Of The Crime Of Possession Of A Controlled Substance Under Section 124.401(5) Of The Iowa Code, The Statue Is Divisible (Regarding Marijuana, Methamphetamine Or Amphetamine) As To The Specific Drug Involved, And The Record Of Conviction Can Be Examined Under The Modified Categorical Approach To Determine Whether That Drug Is A Controlled Substance Under Federal Law. Respondent’s Conviction For Methamphetamine Possession Under Section 124.401(5) Qualifies As A Controlled Substance Offense Under INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i).
  • The Standard Of Proof Necessary To Bar The Approval Of A Visa Petition Based On Marriage Fraud Under INA §204(c) Is “Substantial And Probative Evidence.” The Degree Of Proof Necessary To Constitute “Substantial And Probative Evidence” Is More Than A Preponderance Of Evidence, But Less Than Clear And Convincing Evidence; The Evidence Must Be More Than Probably True That The Marriage Is Fraudulent. The Nature, Quality, Quantity, And Credibility Of The Evidence Of Marriage Fraud Contained In The Record Should Be Considered In Its Totality In Determining If It Is “Substantial And Probative.” The Application Of This Standard Of Proof Requires The Examination Of All The Relevant Evidence And A Determination As To Whether Such Evidence When Viewed In Its Totality, Establishes With Sufficient Probability That The Marriage Is Fraudulent. Both Direct And Circumstantial Evidence May Be Considered In Determining Whether There Is “Substantial And Probative Evidence” Of Marriage Fraud Under §204(c) And Circumstantial Evidence Alone May Be Sufficient To Constitute “Substantial And Probative Evidence.
  • Attorney General Barr Holds That In Matter Of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2018), The BIA Improperly Recognized The Respondent’s Father’s Immediate Family As A “Particular Social Group” (PSG) For Purposes Of Qualifying For Asylum Under The INA. All Asylum Applicants Seeking to Establish Membership In A PSG, Including Groups Defined By Family Or Kinship Ties, Must Establish That The Group Is 1) Composed Of Members Who Share A Common Immutable Characteristic; 2) Defined With Particularity; 3) Socially Distinct Within The Society In Question. While The BIA Has Recognized Certain Clans And Subclans as PSGs, Most Nuclear Families Are Not Inherently Socially Distinct And Therefore Do Not Qualify As PSGs. The Portion Of The BIA’s Decision Recognizing The Respondent’s Proposed PSG Is Overruled (Matter Of L-E-A, Part II. A). The Rest Of The BIA’s Decision Including Its Analysis Of The Required Nexus Between Alleged Persecution And The Alleged Protected Ground, Is Affirmed (Part II.B).
  • BIA Holds Immigration Judges Have The Authority To Deny An Application For Temporary Protected Status (TPS) In The Exercise Of Discretion.
  • BIA Holds That, Under The Plain Language Of INA §237(a)(3)(D)(i), It Is Not Necessary To Show Intent To Establish That One Is Deportable For Making A False Representation Of U.S. Citizenship. Although A Naturalization Certificate Is Evidence Of U.S. Citizenship, The Certificate Itself Does Not Confer Citizenship Status If It Is Acquired Unlawfully.

Practice Areas

  • Family Immigration
  • Marriage
  • Employment Visas
  • H-1B Visas
  • PERM Labor Certification
  • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Hearing & Appeals
  • Deportation, Removal, Asylum
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement

San Francisco Main Office
930 Montgomery Street
Suite 502
San Francisco, CA 94133

Silicon Valley Office
5201 Great America Parkway
Suite 320
Santa Clara, CA 95054

North Bay Office
4040 Civic Center Drive
Suite 200
San Rafael, CA 94903

Santa Barbara Office
3463 State Street
Suite 516
Santa Barbara, CA 93105

Los Angeles Office
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suites 2600 & 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071

©2019 Philip Levin & Associates, Prof. Corp. All Rights Reserved.
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Employment Visas
  • Family Visas
  • Testimonials
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy

R-1
TN

The TN nonimmigrant classification allows qualified Canadian and Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. and engage in professional business activities. PL&A will help you navigate through the TN application process by evaluating your eligibility, preparing supporting documentation for your application, and ultimately filing your application. 

B-1

PL&A will guide you through the consular process to receive a B-1 visa for specific short-term business purposes ranging from contract negotiations to seminars and conferences.

O-1

O-1 visas are for persons of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or sports. 

J-1

Administered by the Department of State, the J-1 visa is for students, trainees, academics, researchers, professionals or experts participating in an approved Exchange Visitor program. PL&A will assist you and your sponsor with preparing the necessary paperwork and the consular process so you can begin your program at ease. 

E-1 & E-2

E-1 visas and E-2 visas are for nationals of countries with which the United States has a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation (FCN) or bilateral investment treaty (BIT). If you are a nonimmigrant trader or investor seeking to conduct business operations or develop a new enterprise in the U.S., we will help you file for the appropriate visa. As a recognized expert in this area, Mr. Levin will provide experienced and dependable assistance with E-1 or E-2 visa applications. 

  • E-1: If you are a national of a country that conducts a significant volume of trade with the U.S. (or if you intend to develop trade between the U.S. and your home country) you might be eligible for entry under an E-1 visa. 
  • E-2: The E-2 visa allows investors from treaty countries to enter the U.S. for purposes of directing and developing a business, with all the commitments and risks implicit in entrepreneurial activity. 
L-1

The L-1 visa category is for executives, managers or professionals employed by foreign affiliates of U.S companies. The L-1 visa is divided into two classifications:

  • L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager
  • L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized Knowledge
H-1B

Many companies in the United States find themselves increasingly dependent on the talent, experience and energy of foreign national workers in professional, technical or specialized occupational fields. These employees typically enter the U.S. on nonimmigrant H-1B visas for “specialty occupations.” 

With extensive experience in business immigration, you can count on PL&A to guide your company or Human Resources department in preparing and filing an H-1B visa petition.

Green Card

Family preservation and reunification is a priority for our firm. Our attorneys have advised and assisted families from all over the world with entry visas, adjustment of status, and other immigration problems. 

  • Immediate Relatives: If you are the spouse, child, or parent of a U.S. citizen, we can help you obtain a green card through an Immediate Relative petition. 
  • Family-Based Preference: If your relative is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, we can assist you with your green card application through one of the family based preference categories.
Fiances

If you are a U.S. citizen and your fiancé/fiancée or spouse is overseas, our office will assist you to navigate the CIS requirements and regulations to have the case approved and then prepare you and your spouse for the interview at the U.S. Embassy. PL&A will also help you find the best ways to resolve any problems you encounter if a waiver is required in your case.

Marriage

Immigration through marriage is a common means of obtaining permanent residence in the U.S.  Since 1991, Philip Levin & Associates has helped hundreds of couples immigrate to the U.S. and build their lives together. 

  • I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status: If you are married to a U.S. citizen, present in the U.S. and eligible to do so, our attorneys will assist you in preparing and filing the necessary I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application in the U.S.
  • Immigrant Visa Consular Processing: If you are married to a U.S. citizen and reside abroad, we will assist you in preparing and filing the IV petition with an Embassy or Consulate-General in your native country. 
  • I-751, Remove Conditions on Residence: If you have been married less than two years at the time your green card was initially approved, our office will help you in the joint petition process to become a permanent resident.