Case ID: f-appx_260/html/0671-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jaime NIETO, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-60732
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 21, 2007.
    Gino Mario Mesa, Mesa & Yeverino, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Alberto R. Gonzales, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before KING, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jaime Nieto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) finding him removable, denying his application for an adjustment of status under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 245(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i), and ordering his voluntary departure or in the alternative, removal to Mexico. Nieto contends that the IJ erred in determining that his inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), for which there is no waiver, rendered him ineligible to adjust his status from that of an illegal alien physically present in the United States to that of a lawful permanent resident.

We have previously upheld as reasonable the BIA’s interpretation that compliance with the requirements of § 1255(i) does not cure inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). The BIA did not act arbitrarily in determining that because Nieto was inadmissible under § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), he was ineligible for an adjustment of status under § 1255(i). See Mortera-Cruz v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 246, 255-56 (5th Cir.2005). Consequently, the BIA’s decision is entitled to deference. Id.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set fordt in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.