Case: 13-12619 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12619
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A099-169-685
RAYMOND SEBASTIAN RICHARDS,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(January 28, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-12619 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 2 of 5
Raymond Sebastian Richards, a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing
his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s order of removal, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(1)(B). The BIA concluded that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c), Richards was
statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status because he was an alien crewman.
On appeal, Richards argues that he is not an alien crewman and that he was
lawfully admitted to the United States, as required for adjustment of status under 8
U.S.C. § 1255(a). After review, we deny Richards’ petition.
We have jurisdiction to review non-discretionary legal determinations as to
statutory eligibility for discretionary relief. Alvarado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 610 F.3d
1311, 1314 (11th Cir. 2010). We review questions of law de novo, including the
BIA’s statutory interpretations. De Sandoval v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1276,
1278 (11th Cir. 2006). We give Chevron 1 deference, where appropriate, to
single-judge, non-precedential BIA decisions where the BIA relied upon its own
precedential opinion. See Quinchia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 552 F.3d 1255, 1258 (11th
Cir. 2008) (distinguishing cases where the agency is entitled to Chevron deference
where it relied on a federal court’s or the BIA’s precedential opinion from those
where a single-judge, non-precedential BIA opinion is not entitled to Chevron
deference where it does not rely on existing BIA or federal court precedent). We
1
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
2
Case: 13-12619 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 3 of 5
must defer to the BIA’s construction of a statute that it administers if it is
reasonable and does not contradict the clear intent of Congress. Id.
The Attorney General, at his discretion, may adjust the status of an alien
who was inspected and admitted into the United States to that of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence if the alien meets certain requirements. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255(a). Alien crewmen, however, are statutorily ineligible for adjustment of
status. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c). The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines a
“crewman” as “a person serving in any capacity on board a vessel or aircraft.” 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(10). Under 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(b)(2), “any alien who, on arrival in
the United States, was serving in any capacity on board a vessel or aircraft or was
destined to join a vessel or aircraft in the United States to serve in any capacity
thereon,” is ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).
When determining whether an alien qualifies as a crewman, the BIA
examines the alien’s visa and the circumstances surrounding his entry into the
United States. Matter of G-D-M-, 25 I.&N. Dec. 82, 85 (BIA 2009). If an “alien
was issued a visa as a crewman and entered the United States in pursuit of his
occupation as a seaman, then he is to be regarded as an alien crewman.” Id. at 85.
Upon entry as a crewman, the alien cannot avoid the limitations associated with
that status. Id. at 84-85. The pivotal issue in deciding whether an alien qualifies as
3
Case: 13-12619 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 4 of 5
a crewman is whether the alien entered the United States “in pursuit of his calling
as a seaman.” Parzagonis v. INS, 747 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir. 1984).
In Matter of G-D-M-, a three-judge panel of the BIA determined that an
alien who entered the United States on a C1/D visa and was issued an I-94 Form
that classified him as a C1 nonimmigrant in transit, qualified as a crewman because
he entered the United States with the intent to work as a crewman, even though he
never found employment as a crewman. See 25 I.&N. Dec. at 83-85. The alien
entered the United States by reason of his occupation as a seaman, regardless of
whether he had prior training or experience as a crewman, or had located future
employment on a specific vessel. Id. at 84.
The BIA’s judgment is entitled to Chevron deference because, although it
issued a single-judge, non-precedential opinion, the BIA relied upon Matter of G-
D-M-, which is a precedential opinion. See Quinchia, 552 F.3d at 1258.
Accordingly, we will defer to the BIA’s interpretation of the INA if it is
reasonable. See id.
The BIA’s conclusion that Richards was a crewman was a reasonable
construction of the INA. Richards obtained a C1/D visa in order to obtain
admission to the United States. He testified he had previously been employed by
Carnival Cruise Lines, he had been given a C1 visa that would allow him to work
for Carnival Cruise Lines, and the documentation he presented upon arrival in the
4
Case: 13-12619 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 5 of 5
United States included a letter from Carnival Cruise Lines. Furthermore, Richards
testified his intent in coming to the United States in 2001 was to join a ship. Based
on these considerations, Richards entered the United States in pursuit of his calling
as a seaman, and was therefore, an alien crewman. See Parzagonis, 747 F.2d at
1390; Matter of G-D-M, 25 I.&N. Dec. at 84. Because the BIA’s conclusion that
Richards was a crewman constituted a reasonable construction of the INA, this
Court must defer to it. See Quinchia, 552 F.3d at 1258.
With respect to Richards’ argument he is eligible for adjustment of status
because he was admitted to the United States as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a),
no one disputes that he meets the admission requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).
However 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) does not apply to alien crewman. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c).
As an alien crewman, Richards is not eligible for adjustment of status. Therefore,
the BIA did not err in dismissing Richards’ appeal. Accordingly, we deny
Richards’ petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
5