F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
April 25, 2007
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
B ERNA RD O
PAD ILLA-PLANCA RTE,
Petitioner,
v. No. 06-9526
(No. A74-575-063)
ALBERTO R. GONZA LES, (Petition for Review)
A ttorney G eneral; D EPA RTM ENT
O F H O M E LA N D SEC UR ITY ;
IM M IGRATION AND CUSTOM S
ENFORCEM ENT,
Respondents.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before L UC ER O, M cKA Y, and A ND ER SO N, Circuit Judges.
Bernardo Padilla-Plancarte, a native and citizen of M exico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
reopen his case to apply for adjustment of his status. Exercising jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we AFFIRM the BIA’s decision.
I
Padilla-Plancarte appeared with his family at a removal hearing on
February 10, 1999, while still a teenager. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
immigration judge (“IJ”) granted the family four months to voluntarily depart the
United States and, in the event families members did not, ordered them removed
to M exico. Padilla-Plancarte did not leave the country. On February 15, 2001,
after being apprehended by immigration authorities, he was removed to M exico
pursuant to the 1999 order. At some point thereafter, his uncle filed a U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-130 “Petition for Alien Relative” to
regularize the immigration status of Padilla-Plancarte’s family. The petition was
approved with a priority date of April 24, 2001. Soon thereafter, on or about M ay
15, 2001, Padilla-Plancarte illegally reentered this country and lived here for
several years.
After he married a U.S. citizen in January 2004, his wife filed a second
Form I-130 petition on his behalf. On June 7, 2005, the same day his wife’s
petition was approved, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) placed
Padilla-Plancarte in removal proceedings, charging him as an alien present in the
United States without being admitted or paroled and as an alien seeking admission
to the United States within ten years of removal. His second removal hearing,
-2-
held June 16, 2005, was a group proceeding. Padilla-Plancarte, appearing without
counsel, conceded that he was removable as charged, told the IJ that he did not
wish to apply for relief from removal, but reserved his right to appeal.
Accordingly, the IJ ordered him removed to M exico, staying the removal pending
an appeal. H is w ife posted a bond and Padilla-Plancarte was released from DHS
custody. Padilla-Plancarte, however, did not appeal. He alleges that, in his
confusion at the removal hearing, he believed payment of the bond nullified the
order of removal, such that he could contest his removability in another
proceeding. Later, he obtained counsel for this purpose.
Counsel for Padilla-Plancarte reviewed the record, determined that
Padilla-Plancarte’s appeal time had expired, and filed a motion to reopen the case.
In his motion, Padilla-Plancarte conceded he w as inadmissible, and therefore
ineligible to adjust his status unless a waiver of inadmissibility was available to
him. He argued that he w as eligible for a w aiver based on the approved Form
I-130 petitions. Upon consideration of his motion, the IJ determined that
Padilla-Plancarte’s illegal reentry after removal rendered him ineligible for
adjustment of status and entered an order denying the motion to reopen on
September 6, 2005. Padilla-Plancarte then appealed to the BIA, which affirmed
the IJ’s decision.
-3-
II
Padilla-Plancarte challenges the denial of his motion to reopen, asserting
that his w ife’s approved Form I-130 petition, coupled with the priority date of his
uncle’s earlier petition, make him eligible to adjust his status to lawful permanent
resident under the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (“LIFE A ct”), codified at
8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(1). 1 This court review s the BIA’s decision on a motion to
reopen for an abuse of discretion, and will reverse only if the decision “provides
no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid
of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements.” Infanzon
v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1359, 1362 (10th Cir. 2004).
“Generally, a previously removed alien who illegally re-enters the United
States is permanently inadmissible to the United States . . . and therefore not
eligible for adjustment of status under [the LIFE A ct].” Fernandez-Vargas v.
Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 881, 885 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Berrum-Garcia v. Comfort,
390 F.3d 1158, 1167 (10th Cir. 2004)); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i). 2
1
In pertinent part, § 1255(i)(1) provides that an alien physically present in the
United States, who entered without inspection, may apply for adjustment of status
upon payment of $1,000 if the alien is a beneficiary of a Form I-130 petition filed
on or before April 30, 2001 and was physically present in the United States on
December 21, 2000.
2
Section 1182(a)(9)(C)(i), which applies to “[a]liens unlawfully present after
previous immigration violations,” provides that, in general:
Any alien who–
(continued...)
-4-
“[A] waiver of this permanent inadmissibility is available,” but the “waiver may
only be sought following the completion of an unwaivable ten-year period outside
of the United States.” Fernandez-V argas, 394 F.3d at 885.
Nothing in the LIFE A ct supercedes the statutory bar placed on a removed
alien’s application for adjustment of status. Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1237, 1243 (10th Cir. 2006). “The class of aliens w ho violate
§ 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) are not the type of illegal entrants meant to be covered by
[the LIFE Act], those illegal entrants who . . . otherw ise played by the rules.
Instead, they are illegal entrants who violate direct court orders.” Id. (quotation
omitted). Plainly, Padilla-Plancarte falls under the statutory proscription and is
therefore ineligible for adjustment of status.
M oreover, contrary to Padilla-Plancarte’s contentions, an approved Form
I-130 petition cannot cure his unlawful reentry. A successful Form I-130 petition
is simply “one prerequisite that ha[s] to be satisfied before [an alien can] apply for
permanent residence or adjustment of status.” United States v. Atandi, 376 F.3d
1186, 1187 (10th Cir. 2004). It does not bar denial of adjustment of status or
2
(...continued)
(I) has been unlaw fully present in the United States for an aggregate
period of more than 1 year, or
(II) has been ordered removed under section 1225(b)(1) of this title,
section 1229a of this title, or any other provision of law,
and who enters or attempts to reenter the United States without being
admitted is inadmissible.
-5-
admissibility on any legitimate ground. See Ferry v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117,
1122-23 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting that DHS approved petitioner’s Form I-130, but
denied admissibility on other grounds); Tchuinga v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 54, 58
(1st Cir. 2006) (describing an IJ’s denial of petitioner’s application for adjustment
of status subsequent to an approved Form I-130 petition).
M oreover, we reject any contention that the BIA abused its discretion by
failing to discuss the IJ’s reliance on an Immigration and Nationality Act provision
that was not charged in the Notice to Appear. Although we acknowledge
Padilla-Plancarte’s argument concerning the confusing nature of his immigration
proceedings, we conclude that he has no factual or legal basis for relief from
removal. 3
III
The judgment of the BIA is AFFIRM ED.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
3
For the first time on appeal, Padilla-Plancarte argues in the alternative that he is
eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A )(iii)
because his uncle’s Form I-130 petition was approved before he reentered the
United States. This contention is w ithout merit and cannot overcome the plain
language of § 1182(a)(9)(A )(iii). That section, which provides an exception to
the inadmissibility of “[c]ertain aliens previously removed,” requires that any
grant of a waiver application by the Attorney General occur “prior to the date of
the alien’s reembarkation at a place outside the United States or attempt to be
admitted from foreign contiguous territory.”
-6-