NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-3534
___________
EDMUNDO EDUARDO CHICA-ROMAN,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A089-002-742)
Immigration Judge Annie S. Garcy
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 8, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, GREENAWAY, JR., and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 23, 2012)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Edmundo Eduardo Chica-Roman, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision
of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) pretermitting his applications for adjustment of status and
cancellation of removal because he was barred from such relief as an alien crewman. For
the following reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
In 1996, Chica-Roman obtained a “C-1/D” visa 1 from the United States Consulate
in Ecuador. He was admitted to the United States in New York, New York, as a “C-1
nonimmigrant in transit” authorized to remain in the United States until May 2, 1996. In
April 2009, he was placed in removal proceedings, with charges under INA §
237(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), as an alien who has remained in the United
States for a time longer than permitted.
An IJ hearing was held in which Chica-Roman, through his attorney, admitted to
the allegations in the Notice to Appear. As relief from removal, he sought adjustment of
status under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), or in the alternative, cancellation of
removal under INA § 245, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. At the hearing, Chica-Roman testified that a
friend provided him with paperwork to apply for a visa as a marine crewman entering the
United States in transit to Japan. His friend also arranged to have Chica-Roman placed
on a “roll call” to work as a kitchen helper on a ship in Japan. Chica-Roman stated that
he presented the paperwork to the United States Consulate and was issued a C-1/D visa. 2
Chica-Roman testified that his specific intent when entering the United States was to
1
A “C-1” visa classification is given to a nonimmigrant in immediate and
continuous transit through the United States. A “D” visa classification is given to a
nonimmigrant accorded “alien crewman” status. See INA § 101(a)(15)(C), (D), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(15)(C), (D).
2
Chica-Roman testified that he never reviewed the documents and did not recall
2
remain in the United States for two years. He never intended to work on a ship or travel
to Japan, but he prepared a story, that he was in transit to Japan to pick up a ship to bring
back to Ecuador, in case he was questioned by an immigration officer. 3
The IJ acknowledged that Chica-Roman was admitted into the United States as a
C-1 nonimmigrant in transit, and noted that it is not uncommon for a nonimmigrant visa
to be issued using more than one category. 4 The IJ found that Chica-Roman was issued a
visa based specifically on his representation that the purpose of his visit to the United
States was to permit him to enter the United States in order to join a ship in Japan as a
crewman. Thus, the IJ concluded that Chica-Roman entered the United States as a
crewman in transit and was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal or
adjustment of status.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision on appeal. The BIA also acknowledged that
Chica-Roman was admitted into the United States as a C-1 nonimmigrant in transit. The
BIA agreed with the IJ’s determination that he was a crewman for purposes of eligibility
for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal because he secured his admission to
the United States as a crewman in transit. Thus, the BIA rejected Chica-Roman’s
being questioned about his application.
3
Chica-Roman testified that did not recall being questioned by an immigration
officer about his entry into the United States.
4
The IJ theorized that a crewman might require a C-1 transit visa to enter the
United States at one border and require a D crewman visa for the purpose of joining his
vessel at another border.
3
argument that he should not be considered a crewman because he never had any intention
of ever becoming a crewman. Chica-Roman filed this timely petition for review.
We have jurisdiction under INA § 242(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), to review the
question whether Chica-Roman is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal or
adjustment of status. 5 Where the BIA issues a decision on the merits, we review only the
BIA’s decision. However, we will look to the IJ’s analysis to the extent that the BIA
deferred to or adopted it. See Chavarria v. Gonzalez, 446 F.3d 508, 515 (3d Cir. 2006).
Our review of legal conclusions is de novo, subject to principles of deference. Wu v.
Att’y Gen., 571 F.3d 314, 317 (3d Cir. 2009). “We apply substantial evidence review to
agency findings of fact, departing from factual findings only where a reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to arrive at a contrary conclusion.” Mendez-Reyes v.
Att’y Gen., 428 F.3d 187, 191 (3d Cir. 2005).
An alien who entered the United States as a crewman is ineligible for adjustment
of status and cancellation of removal. See INA § 240A(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(1);
INA § 245(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c). The term crewman is defined as “a person serving in
any capacity on board a vessel or aircraft” “who intends to land temporarily and solely in
pursuit of his calling as a crewman and to depart from the United States with the vessel or
aircraft on which he arrived or some other vessel or aircraft.” INA § 101(a)(10),
5
The Government contends that we lack jurisdiction to consider the petition for
review because Chica-Roman failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We
disagree. Review of record demonstrates that Chica-Roman sufficiently placed the BIA
on notice of his argument that he did not enter the United States as a crewman. See
4
(15)(D)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(10), (15)(D)(i). 6 In determining whether an alien should
be considered a crewman, the type of visa the alien possessed and the circumstances
surrounding the alien’s admission into the United States are examined. In re G-D-M-, 25
I. & N. Dec. 82, 84-85 (BIA 2009).
Chica-Roman contends that there was no evidence to support the BIA’s finding
that he entered the United States as a crewman. Chica-Roman argues that he was
admitted as a C-1 nonimmigrant in transit pursuant to INA § 101(a)(15)(C), 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(15)(C), not a “crewman” as defined in INA § 101(a)(15)(D), 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(15) (D), emphasizing that he was issued an I-94 entry document admitting him
into the United States as a C-1 alien in transit. Additionally, Chica-Roman argues that he
did not enter the United States as a crewman because he never was a crewman and he did
not express any intent to become a crewman.
We agree with the BIA that the pertinent inquiry in determining whether Chica-
Roman is a crewman is not the entry document the United States immigration authority
issued to him or his intentions, but whether Chica-Roman was issued a visa as an alien
crewman and entered the United States as a crewman. See In re G-D-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec.
at 86 n.6. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chica-Roman was
Joseph v. Att’y Gen., 465 F.3d 123, 126 (3d Cir. 2006).
6
To the extent that Chica-Roman argues that he is not a crewman because he
entered the United States to join a vessel in Japan, not in the United States, this argument
fails. The definition of a crewman does not require the alien to serve on a vessel
departing from the United States. See INA § 101(a) (15)(D)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)
(15)(D)(i).
5
issued a visa as an alien crewman in transit, as Chica-Roman testified that he acquired his
visa by representing to the United States Consulate in Ecuador that he would be entering
the United States as a marine crewman in transit to work on a vessel in Japan. “By
choosing to seek entry to the United States as a crewman, [Chica-Roman] agreed to the
limitations associated with that status. Therefore, he cannot now avoid the consequences
of those restrictions in removal proceedings by claiming not to be a crewman.” Id. at 84-
85.
We conclude that no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to arrive at a
conclusion contrary to the BIA’s. Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review.
6