In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ȱ No.ȱ15Ȭ2336ȱ JULIOȱESTRADAȬHERNANDEZ,ȱ Petitioner,ȱ v.ȱ LORETTAȱE.ȱLYNCH,ȱAttorneyȱGeneralȱ ofȱtheȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ Respondent.ȱ ____________________ȱ PetitionȱforȱReviewȱofȱanȱOrderȱofȱtheȱ BoardȱofȱImmigrationȱAppeals.ȱ No.ȱA091Ȭ335Ȭ563ȱ ____________________ȱ ARGUEDȱMARCHȱ2,ȱ2016ȱ—ȱDECIDEDȱMARCHȱ17,ȱ2016ȱ REȬISSUEDȱASȱOPINIONȱAPRILȱ8,ȱ2016ȱ ____________________ȱ BeforeȱWOOD,ȱChiefȱJudge,ȱandȱ BAUERȱandȱKANNE,ȱCircuitȱ Judges.ȱ PERȱ CURIAM.ȱ ȱ Julioȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ isȱ aȱ 34ȬyearȬoldȱ Mexicanȱ citizenȱ whoȱ hasȱ beenȱ removedȱ fromȱ theȱ Unitedȱ StatesȱasȱanȱalienȱconvictedȱofȱcontrolledȬsubstanceȱoffenses,ȱ aȱfirearmȱoffenseȱ(anȱaggravatedȱfelony),ȱandȱcrimesȱinvolvȬ 2ȱ No.ȱ15Ȭ2336ȱ ingȱmoralȱturpitude.ȱSeeȱ8ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1227(a)(2).ȱFirstȱanȱimmiȬ grationȱ judgeȱ andȱ thenȱ theȱ Boardȱ ofȱ Immigrationȱ Appealsȱ rejectedȱ hisȱ effortsȱ toȱ avoidȱ removal,ȱ andȱ soȱ heȱ hasȱ nowȱ turnedȱtoȱthisȱcourtȱforȱrelief.ȱWeȱfindȱnoȱreasonȱtoȱupsetȱtheȱ BIA’sȱdecision,ȱhowever,ȱandȱsoȱweȱdenyȱhisȱpetitionȱforȱreȬ view.ȱȱȱ Iȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ andȱ hisȱ motherȱ enteredȱ theȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱunlawfullyȱwhenȱheȱwasȱaȱsmallȱchild.ȱTheyȱadjustedȱ theirȱ statusȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ lawfulȱ permanentȱ residentsȱ (LPRs)ȱ inȱ 1989,ȱ whenȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ wasȱ seven.ȱ Hisȱ motherȱ beȬ cameȱ aȱ naturalizedȱ citizenȱ whenȱ heȱ wasȱ 16,ȱ butȱ aȱ quirkȱ ofȱ immigrationȱ lawȱ preventedȱ herȱ naturalizationȱ fromȱ conferȬ ringȱcitizenshipȱonȱhimȱautomatically.ȱHisȱparentsȱwereȱmarȬ ried,ȱ thoughȱ apparentlyȱ notȱ happilyȱ so.ȱ Heȱ couldȱ haveȱ beȬ comeȱaȱcitizenȱinȱoneȱofȱtwoȱways:ȱeitherȱbothȱofȱhisȱparentsȱ wouldȱ haveȱ hadȱ toȱ naturalizeȱ beforeȱ heȱ turnedȱ 18,ȱ orȱ theyȱ wouldȱ haveȱ hadȱ toȱ becomeȱ legallyȱ separated.ȱ Seeȱ CitizenȬ shipȱ throughȱ parents,ȱ https://www.uscis.gov/usȬ citizenship/citizenshipȬthroughȬparentsȱ (lastȱ visitedȱ Mar.ȱ 9,ȱ 2016).ȱNeitherȱofȱthoseȱthingsȱhappened.ȱ Overȱ theȱ nextȱ 15ȱ years,ȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ wasȱ convictȬ edȱ ofȱ severalȱ stateȱ crimes,ȱ includingȱ threeȱ controlledȬ substanceȱ violations,ȱ twoȱ retailȱ theftȱ convictions,ȱ andȱ oneȱ chargeȱ ofȱ felonȬinȬpossessionȱ ofȱ aȱ firearm.ȱ Eventuallyȱ theȱ Departmentȱ ofȱ Homelandȱ Security’sȱ Immigrationȱ andȱ CusȬ tomsȱ Enforcementȱ (ICE)ȱ sectionȱ becameȱ awareȱ ofȱ hisȱ crimiȬ nalȱ recordȱ andȱ hisȱ LPRȱ status.ȱ ICEȱ institutedȱ removalȱ proȬ ceedingsȱagainstȱhimȱinȱJanuaryȱ2015,ȱchargingȱhimȱwithȱbeȬ ingȱ removableȱ asȱ anȱ alienȱ whoȱ afterȱ admissionȱ toȱ theȱ UnitȬ edȱStatesȱwasȱconvictedȱofȱthreeȱcontrolledȬsubstanceȱcrimes,ȱȱ No.ȱ15Ȭ2336ȱ 3 8ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1227(a)(2)(B)(i),ȱandȱoneȱaggravatedȱfelonyȱconvicȬ tionȱ stemmingȱ fromȱ aȱ firearmȱ violation,ȱ id.ȱ§ȱ1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).ȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ wasȱ laterȱ chargedȱ withȱ twoȱ additionalȱ groundsȱ ofȱ removal—oneȱ forȱ aȱ firearmȱ violation,ȱ id.ȱ§ȱ1227(a)(2)(C),ȱ arisingȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ convicȬ tionȱasȱtheȱaggravatedȱfelonyȱcharge,ȱandȱoneȱbasedȱonȱconȬ victionsȱ forȱ twoȱ orȱ moreȱ crimesȱ involvingȱ moralȱ turpitude,ȱ id.ȱ §ȱ1227(a)(2)(A)(ii),ȱ stemmingȱ fromȱ twoȱ shopliftingȱ inciȬ dents.ȱ AtȱEstradaȬHernandez’sȱremovalȱhearing,ȱtheȱIJȱinformedȱ himȱ ofȱ hisȱ rightȱ toȱ representationȱ atȱ noȱ costȱ toȱ theȱ governȬ mentȱandȱaskedȱwhetherȱheȱwishedȱtoȱhaveȱtheȱcaseȱcontinȬ uedȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ secureȱ counsel.ȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ didȱ notȱ respond;ȱ instead,ȱ heȱ askedȱ whyȱ heȱ wasȱ beingȱ detainedȱ andȱ explainedȱthatȱheȱthoughtȱheȱhadȱbecomeȱaȱcitizenȱwhenȱhisȱ motherȱ naturalized.ȱ Theȱ IJȱ exploredȱ theȱ issueȱ andȱ deterȬ minedȱ thatȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ hadȱ neverȱ obtainedȱ citizenȬ shipȱbecauseȱhisȱparentsȱhadȱremainedȱlegallyȱmarried.ȱTheȱ followingȱcolloquyȱthenȱtookȱplace:ȱ IJ:ȱ Well,ȱitȱdoesȱnotȱappearȱtoȱme,ȱsir,ȱyouȱareȱaȱ citizenȱofȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱ…ȱDoȱyouȱwantȱmeȱtoȱconȬ tinueȱyourȱcaseȱtoȱgiveȱyouȱmoreȱtimeȱtoȱgetȱaȱlawyer?ȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ(EȬH):ȱNo.ȱ IJ:ȱ Doȱyouȱwishȱthenȱtoȱrepresentȱyourself?ȱ EȬH:ȱ Yes,ȱIȱmeanȱwhatȱotherȱchoicesȱdoȱIȱhave?ȱ IJ:ȱ Well,ȱ I’mȱ willingȱ toȱ continueȱ theȱ caseȱ toȱ giveȱ youȱ timeȱ toȱ contactȱ theȱ lawyersȱ onȱ thatȱ listȱ thatȱ youȱreceivedȱorȱanyȱotherȱlawyerȱthatȱyouȱmightȱwishȱ toȱcontact.ȱ 4ȱ No.ȱ15Ȭ2336ȱ EȬH:ȱ I’veȱtriedȱto—I’mȱsorry.ȱ IJ:ȱ Orȱanyȱotherȱlawyerȱthatȱyouȱmightȱwish—ȱ EȬH:ȱ I’veȱalreadyȱcontactedȱthem.ȱ IJ:ȱ Ifȱ youȱ wishȱ toȱ representȱ yourselfȱ today,ȱ it’sȱ yourȱrightȱtoȱdoȱso.ȱItȱincludesȱyourȱrightȱtoȱspeakȱonȱ yourȱ ownȱ behalfȱ andȱ toȱ presentȱ witnessesȱ andȱ eviȬ denceȱinȱcourt.ȱYouȱhaveȱtheȱrightȱtoȱinspectȱevidenceȱ thatȱ theȱ Governmentȱ presentsȱ againstȱ youȱ andȱ youȱ mayȱobjectȱtoȱsuchȱevidenceȱbyȱaskingȱthatȱtheȱCourtȱ notȱ considerȱ it.ȱ Youȱ haveȱ theȱ rightȱ toȱ questionȱ anyȱ witnessȱ whoȱ testifiesȱ inȱ yourȱ caseȱ andȱ ifȱ thisȱ Courtȱ rulesȱagainstȱyou,ȱyouȱwouldȱhaveȱtheȱrightȱtoȱappealȱ toȱaȱhigherȱcourtȱwhichȱisȱknownȱasȱtheȱBoardȱofȱImȬ migrationȱAppeals.ȱDoȱyouȱunderstandȱtheseȱrights?ȱ EȬH:ȱ Yes,ȱsir.ȱ TheȱIJȱthenȱproceededȱwithȱtheȱhearing,ȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱ whichȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ admittedȱ thatȱ heȱ hadȱ beenȱ conȬ victedȱ ofȱ threeȱ stateȱ controlledȬsubstanceȱ offensesȱ (allȱ inȬ volvingȱpossessionȱofȱcocaine),ȱretailȱtheft,ȱandȱpossessingȱaȱ firearmȱ asȱ aȱ felon.ȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ couldȱ notȱ rememberȱ theȱotherȱtheftȱthatȱwasȱtheȱbasisȱforȱtheȱchargeȱofȱremovabilȬ ityȱ asȱ anȱ alienȱ “convictedȱ ofȱ twoȱ orȱ moreȱ crimesȱ involvingȱ moralȱ turpitude,”ȱ 8ȱU.S.C.ȱ §ȱ1227(a)(2)(A)(ii),ȱ butȱ theȱ govȬ ernmentȱofferedȱproofȱofȱthatȱconvictionȱbyȱsubmittingȱcourtȱ documentsȱ fromȱ Cookȱ County.ȱ Theȱ IJȱ askedȱ EstradaȬ Hernandezȱ whetherȱ heȱ fearedȱ beingȱ harmedȱ ifȱ heȱ wereȱ reȬ turnedȱtoȱMexico,ȱevenȱofferingȱtoȱcontinueȱtheȱcaseȱtoȱgiveȱ himȱ moreȱ timeȱ toȱ considerȱ whetherȱ heȱ wishedȱ toȱ applyȱ forȱ asylum.ȱEstradaȬHernandezȱonceȱagainȱdeclinedȱtheȱIJ’sȱofferȱ ofȱ aȱ continuance.ȱ Theȱ IJȱ thenȱ pronouncedȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ reȬ No.ȱ15Ȭ2336ȱ 5 movableȱonȱallȱfourȱgroundsȱchargedȱbyȱtheȱgovernmentȱandȱ enteredȱanȱorderȱofȱremoval.ȱȱ OnlyȱthenȱdidȱEstradaȬHernandezȱfinallyȱobtainȱcounsel.ȱ Heȱ appealedȱ toȱ theȱ Boardȱ ofȱ ImmigrationȱAppeals,ȱ arguingȱ thatȱ remandȱ wasȱ warrantedȱ toȱ allowȱ himȱ toȱ withdrawȱ theȱ admissionsȱheȱhadȱmadeȱwhileȱunrepresented.ȱHeȱaskedȱtheȱ Boardȱtoȱ“issueȱaȱ publishedȱdecisionȱrequiringȱimmigrationȱ judgesȱtoȱenterȱaȱcontestedȱpleaȱtoȱallȱchargesȱinȱtheȱnoticeȱtoȱ appearȱwhenȱaȱnoncitizenȱisȱappearingȱinȱproȱperȱregardlessȱ ofȱtheȱreasonȱwhyȱheȱappearsȱwithoutȱcounsel.”ȱDueȱprocessȱ requiresȱ suchȱ aȱ rule,ȱ heȱ asserted,ȱ becauseȱ askingȱ uncounȬ seledȱ aliensȱ toȱ admitȱ orȱ denyȱ theȱ allegationsȱ againstȱ themȱ hasȱtheȱeffectȱofȱshiftingȱtheȱburdenȱofȱproof,ȱratherȱthanȱreȬ quiringȱtheȱagencyȱtoȱproveȱchargesȱbyȱclearȱandȱconvincingȱ evidence.ȱȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱalsoȱarguedȱthatȱheȱwasȱnotȱsubjectȱtoȱ removalȱforȱtheȱaggravatedȱfelonyȱconvictionȱbecauseȱhisȱadȬ justmentȱ ofȱ statusȱ doesȱ notȱ qualifyȱ asȱ anȱ admissionȱ toȱ theȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ andȱ thusȱ §ȱ1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)—whichȱ providesȱ thatȱ“[a]nyȱalienȱwhoȱisȱconvictedȱofȱanȱaggravatedȱfelonyȱatȱ anyȱ timeȱ afterȱ admissionȱ isȱ deportable”ȱ (emphasisȱ added)— doesȱnotȱapplyȱtoȱhim.ȱFinallyȱheȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱIJȱerredȱinȱ findingȱthatȱhisȱconvictionȱforȱpossessingȱaȱfirearmȱasȱaȱfelonȱ qualifiedȱ asȱ anȱ aggravatedȱ felonyȱ becauseȱ theȱ stateȱ crimeȱ thatȱ wasȱ theȱ predicateȱ forȱ thatȱ conviction—possessingȱ coȬ caine,ȱ 720ȱ ILCSȱ 570/402(c)—isȱ punishableȱ byȱ imprisonmentȱ forȱ“oneȱyearȱorȱmore,”ȱratherȱthanȱaȱtermȱofȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱ year,ȱandȱthereforeȱtheȱstateȱcrimeȱ“doesȱnotȱsquarelyȱ‘fitȱin’ȱ withinȱ theȱ expressȱ statutoryȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ federalȱ definiȬ tion.”ȱ ȱ 6ȱ No.ȱ15Ȭ2336ȱ TheȱBoardȱrejectedȱallȱofȱEstradaȬHernandez’sȱargumentsȱ andȱ upheldȱ theȱ removalȱ order.ȱ Itȱ concludedȱ thatȱ EstraȬ daȬHernandezȱwasȱaffordedȱdueȱprocessȱbecauseȱtheȱIJȱfullyȱ compliedȱ withȱ theȱ statutoryȱ requirementȱ toȱ informȱ himȱ ofȱ hisȱ rightȱ toȱ obtainȱ counsel,ȱ 8ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1229a(b)(4),ȱ andȱ ofȬ feredȱ repeatedlyȱ toȱ continueȱ theȱ caseȱ toȱ allowȱ EstradaȬ Hernandezȱ toȱ obtainȱ representation.ȱ Theȱ Boardȱ dismissedȱ anyȱsuggestionȱthatȱtheȱIJȱshiftedȱtheȱburdenȱofȱproofȱregardȬ ingȱ theȱ chargesȱ setȱ forthȱ inȱ theȱ Noticeȱ toȱ Appear;ȱ theȱ govȬ ernmentȱ properlyȱ supportedȱ itsȱ chargesȱ withȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ eachȱ conviction.ȱ Asȱ forȱ theȱ questionȱ whetherȱ EstradaȬ Hernandez’sȱ firearmsȱ convictionȱ wasȱ anȱ aggravatedȱ felonyȱ forȱimmigrationȱpurposes,ȱtheȱBoardȱobservedȱthatȱthisȱcourtȱ alreadyȱhadȱresolvedȱtheȱquestionȱinȱtheȱgovernment’sȱfavor.ȱ NegreteȬRodriguezȱv.ȱMukasey,ȱ518ȱF.3dȱ497ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2008).ȱTheȱ Boardȱ rejectedȱ EstradaȬHernandez’sȱ contentionȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ notȱremovableȱunderȱ8ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1227(a)(2)(iii)ȱbecauseȱheȱwasȱ neverȱ“admitted”ȱatȱaȱborder;ȱitȱheldȱthatȱAbdelqadarȱv.ȱGonȬ zales,ȱ413ȱF.3dȱ668ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2005),ȱestablishesȱthatȱadjustmentȱ ofȱ statusȱ qualifiesȱ asȱ anȱ admissionȱ forȱ purposesȱ ofȱ §ȱ1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).ȱ IIȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱpinsȱhisȱhopesȱinȱthisȱpetitionȱonȱhisȱ effortȱtoȱpersuadeȱusȱthatȱtheȱallegedȱ“denialȱofȱtheȱrightȱtoȱ counsel,”ȱ whichȱ “includesȱ theȱ substantialȱ interferenceȱ withȱ thatȱright,”ȱamountedȱtoȱ“aȱdenialȱofȱdueȱprocessȱunderȱtheȱ Fifthȱ Amendment.”ȱ Heȱ contendsȱ thatȱ theȱ IJȱ “coercedȱ andȱ discouragedȱhimȱfromȱpursuingȱlegalȱrepresentation”ȱbyȱinȬ formingȱ himȱ thatȱ heȱ didȱ notȱ deriveȱ citizenshipȱ throughȱ hisȱ motherȱandȱthenȱbyȱacceptingȱadmissionsȱheȱmadeȱinȱtheȱabȬ senceȱ ofȱ counsel.ȱ And,ȱ heȱ asserts,ȱ theȱ IJȱ “excus[ed]ȱ theȱ DeȬ No.ȱ15Ȭ2336ȱ 7 partmentȱfromȱcarryingȱonȱitsȱownȱburdenȱofȱproof”ȱbyȱfindȬ ingȱhimȱremovableȱbasedȱonȱhisȱownȱadmissions.ȱȱ Theȱ suggestionȱ ofȱ coercionȱ isȱ baseless.ȱ Theȱ IJȱ repeatedlyȱ offeredȱtoȱcontinueȱtheȱcaseȱsoȱthatȱEstradaȬHernandezȱcouldȱ tryȱtoȱcontactȱaȱlawyer,ȱbutȱEstradaȬHernandezȱexplicitlyȱdeȬ clinedȱthoseȱoffers,ȱconfirmedȱhisȱwishȱtoȱproceedȱproȱse,ȱandȱ statedȱthatȱheȱalreadyȱhadȱcontactedȱtheȱproȱbonoȱattorneysȱ onȱtheȱlistȱheȱhadȱbeenȱprovided.ȱMoreover,ȱitȱwouldȱbeȱimȬ possibleȱ forȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ toȱ showȱ prejudiceȱ fromȱ counsel’sȱ absence,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ governmentȱ presentedȱ eviȬ denceȱ toȱ supportȱ eachȱ conviction.ȱ Althoughȱ 8ȱ U.S.C.ȱ§ȱ 1229a(b)(4)ȱconfersȱaȱstatutoryȱrightȱtoȱhireȱone’sȱownȱlawyerȱ inȱanȱimmigrationȱhearing,ȱthatȱrightȱisȱnotȱderivedȱfromȱtheȱ SixthȱAmendmentȱrightȱtoȱcounselȱinȱaȱcriminalȱproceeding.ȱ Theȱ latterȱ rightȱ doesȱ notȱ applyȱ toȱ removalȱ proceedings,ȱ whichȱareȱregardedȱasȱcivilȱinȱnature.ȱSeeȱMagalaȱv.ȱGonzales,ȱ 434ȱ F.3dȱ 523,ȱ 525ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2005);ȱ Stroeȱ v.ȱ INS,ȱ 256ȱ F.3dȱ 498,ȱ 500ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2001);ȱLeslieȱv.ȱAtt’yȱGen.ȱofȱtheȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ611ȱ F.3dȱ 171,ȱ 180–81ȱ (3dȱ Cir.ȱ 2010).ȱ Dueȱ processȱ protectionsȱ doȱ applyȱ inȱ allȱ civilȱ proceedings,ȱ includingȱ removalȱ hearings,ȱ Stroe,ȱ256ȱF.3dȱatȱ500,ȱbutȱweȱpresumeȱthatȱanyȱremovalȱproȬ ceedingȱsatisfiesȱdueȱprocessȱwhenȱitȱisȱconductedȱinȱaccordȬ anceȱ withȱ 8ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ 1229a(b)(4).ȱ Thatȱ statuteȱ requiresȱ onlyȱ thatȱ aȱ noncitizenȱ beȱ givenȱ anȱ opportunityȱ toȱ hireȱ aȱ lawyer.ȱ Apouviepseakodaȱ v.ȱ Gonzales,ȱ 475ȱ F.3dȱ 881,ȱ 884–85ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2007).ȱTheȱIJȱmadeȱitȱclearȱtoȱEstradaȬHernandezȱthatȱheȱhadȱ thisȱright.ȱȱ Althoughȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ representedȱ atȱ oneȱ pointȱ thatȱ theȱ soleȱ issueȱ onȱ appealȱ wasȱ hisȱ complaintȱ aboutȱ theȱ supposedȱ denialȱ ofȱ counsel,ȱ heȱ raisesȱ twoȱ otherȱ argumentsȱ asȱwell,ȱbothȱofȱwhichȱtheȱBoardȱrejected.ȱFirst,ȱwithoutȱadȬ 8ȱ No.ȱ15Ȭ2336ȱ dressingȱ theȱ Board’sȱ contraryȱ conclusion,ȱ heȱ contendsȱ thatȱ heȱisȱnotȱremovableȱunderȱ§ȱ1227(a)(2)(A)(iii),ȱwhichȱappliesȱ onlyȱtoȱaliensȱwhoȱhaveȱcommittedȱanȱaggravatedȱfelonyȱafȬ terȱ admission.ȱ Hisȱ theoryȱ isȱ thatȱ hisȱ adjustmentȱ ofȱ status,ȱ whichȱ occurredȱ afterȱ heȱ hadȱ enteredȱ theȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ unȬ lawfully,ȱ doesȱ notȱ qualifyȱ asȱ anȱ “admission”ȱ underȱ 8ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1101(a)(13)(A).ȱErgo,ȱheȱreasons,ȱheȱcommittedȱnoȱ felonies,ȱ aggravatedȱ orȱ otherwise,ȱ afterȱ admissionȱ becauseȱ heȱwasȱneverȱ“admitted.”ȱHeȱbasesȱthisȱargumentȱonȱAbdelȬ qadarȱv.ȱGonzales,ȱ413ȱF.3dȱ668ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2005),ȱwhichȱheȱcallsȱ theȱ“seminalȱcase”ȱholdingȱthatȱanȱalienȱwhoȱisȱnotȱinspectedȱ byȱanȱimmigrationȱ officerȱatȱentryȱhasȱ neverȱbeenȱ admittedȱ andȱisȱnotȱsubjectȱtoȱremovalȱunderȱ§ȱ1227.ȱAbdelqadar,ȱEstraȬ daȱsays,ȱhasȱbeenȱ“consistentlyȱfollowedȱ[inȱtheȱSeventhȱCirȬ cuit],ȱasȱitȱmust,ȱbyȱaȱseriesȱofȱpublishedȱdecisionsȱwithȱfullȱ unconditionalȱapproval.”ȱȱ Thatȱ isȱ notȱ whatȱ Abdelqadarȱ holds.ȱ Indeed,ȱ thatȱ caseȱ isȱ distinctlyȱunhelpfulȱforȱEstradaȬHernandez.ȱCitingȱMatterȱofȱ RosasȬRamirez,ȱ22ȱI.ȱ&ȱN.ȱ616ȱ(BIAȱ1999)ȱ(enȱbanc),ȱtheȱAbdelȬ qadarȱ courtȱ endorsedȱ theȱ Board’sȱ interpretationȱ that,ȱ forȱ anȱ alienȱwhoȱhadȱenteredȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱillegally,ȱanȱadjustȬ mentȱ ofȱ statusȱ isȱ anȱ “admission”ȱ forȱ purposeȱ ofȱ §ȱ1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)ȱ becauseȱ theȱ adjustmentȱ ofȱ statusȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱpointȱatȱwhichȱthatȱindividualȱisȱlawfullyȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱ States.ȱ Abdelqadar,ȱ 413ȱ F.3dȱ atȱ 672–73.ȱ Otherwise,ȱ illegalȱ enȬ trantsȱwouldȱbeȱexemptȱfromȱremovalȱandȱwould,ȱparadoxiȬ cally,ȱenjoyȱgreaterȱrightsȱthanȱlawfulȱimmigrants.ȱId.ȱatȱ673;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ OcampoȬDuranȱ v.ȱ Ashcroft,ȱ 254ȱ F.3dȱ 1133,ȱ 1134–35ȱ (9thȱCir.ȱ2001)ȱ(rejectingȱargumentȱthatȱalienȱwhoȱadjustedȱtoȱ lawfulȱstatusȱafterȱillegalȱentryȱwasȱneverȱadmittedȱforȱpurȬ posesȱ ofȱ §ȱ1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)).ȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ mistakenlyȱ reliesȱonȱanȱinappositeȱpassageȱfromȱAbdelqadar,ȱinȱwhichȱweȱ No.ȱ15Ȭ2336ȱ 9 rejectedȱ theȱ Board’sȱ viewȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ “admission”ȱ inȱ anȬ otherȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ statute,ȱ §ȱ1227(a)(2)(A)(i),ȱ referredȱ toȱ theȱ mostȱrecent,ȱratherȱthanȱtheȱinitial,ȱentry.ȱ413ȱF.3dȱatȱ673–74.ȱ Indeed,ȱweȱcautionedȱinȱAbdelqadarȱthatȱ“theȱwholeȱpointȱofȱ contextualȱ readingȱ isȱ thatȱ contextȱ matters—andȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ ‘admission’ȱ inȱ [oneȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ statute]ȱ differsȱ substantiallyȱ fromȱ itsȱ contextȱ inȱ [another].”ȱ Id.ȱ atȱ 674.ȱ Seeȱ LemusȬLosaȱv.ȱHolder,ȱ576ȱF.3dȱ752,ȱ757ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009).ȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱarguesȱfinallyȱthatȱtheȱBoardȱerredȱbyȱ concludingȱ thatȱ hisȱ stateȱ convictionȱ underȱ 720ȱ ILCSȱ §ȱ5/24Ȭ 1.1(a)ȱforȱbeingȱaȱfelonȱinȱpossessionȱofȱaȱfirearmȱqualifiesȱasȱ anȱ aggravatedȱ felonyȱ forȱ purposesȱ ofȱ removal.ȱ Seeȱ 8ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).ȱ Theȱ stateȱ crimeȱ doesȱ notȱ “squarelyȱ fitȱ [ȱ ]ȱ withȱ theȱ expressȱ statutoryȱ languageȱ ofȱ [theȱ analogousȱ federalȱ offense,ȱ 18ȱ U.S.C.ȱ §ȱ 922(g)(1)],”ȱ heȱ conȬ tends,ȱ becauseȱ hisȱpredicateȱstateȱfelonyȱconvictionȱforȱposȬ sessionȱofȱcocaineȱisȱpunishableȱbyȱimprisonmentȱofȱnotȱlessȱ thanȱ oneȱ year,ȱwhileȱ federalȱlawȱdefinesȱaȱ felonyȱasȱ aȱcrimeȱ punishableȱ byȱ aȱ sentenceȱ ofȱ moreȱ thanȱ oneȱ year.ȱ Butȱ asȱ theȱ governmentȱ correctlyȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ theȱ relevantȱ inquiryȱ isȱ whetherȱtheȱIllinoisȱfelonȬinȬpossessionȱoffenseȱ(ofȱwhichȱEsȬ tradaȬHernandezȱ wasȱ convicted)ȱ qualifiesȱ asȱ anȱ aggravatedȱ felony,ȱandȱthisȱcourtȱalreadyȱhasȱconcludedȱthatȱitȱdoes.ȱSeeȱ NegreteȬRodriguezȱ v.ȱ Mukasey,ȱ 518ȱ F.3dȱ 497,ȱ 500–02ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2008).ȱ Finally,ȱ itȱ isȱ worthȱ notingȱ thatȱ EstradaȬHernandezȱ chalȬ lengesȱ onlyȱ theȱ IJ’sȱ findingȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ subjectȱ toȱ removalȱ basedȱ onȱ anȱ aggravatedȱ felonyȱ conviction.ȱ Heȱ hasȱ notȱ chalȬ lengedȱ theȱ IJ’sȱ rulingȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ alsoȱ subjectȱ toȱ removalȱ basedȱonȱconvictionsȱforȱtwoȱorȱmoreȱcrimesȱinvolvingȱmoralȱ turpitude,ȱthreeȱcontrolledȱsubstanceȱconvictions,ȱandȱaȱconȬ 10ȱ No.ȱ15Ȭ2336ȱ victionȱ forȱ aȱ firearmȱ offense.ȱ Givenȱ ourȱ findingȱ thatȱ theȱ reȬ movalȱproceedingsȱwereȱnotȱtaintedȱbyȱanyȱdueȱprocessȱvioȬ lationȱandȱtheȱampleȱsupportȱtheȱgovernmentȱfurnished,ȱweȱ DENYȱtheȱpetitionȱforȱreview.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ