[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 10784 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:14

- cv - 20543

- CMA EDWIN ROSETE REGANIT, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DIRECTOR, US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICE MIAMI DISTRICT OFFICE, Linda Swacina, KENDALL FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Andrew Davidson, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
D efendants

- Appellees.

________________________ Appe al from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (February 25, 2016 ) Case: 15-10784 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 1 of 122 Before WILLIAM PRYOR , JULIE CARNES, and FAY , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Defendants, who are the Department of Homeland Security a nd related entities, denied Plaintiff Edwin Rose te Reganit ’s application for naturalization. Plaintiff sought review of this denial in district court, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c)

. 1 The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants. Plaintiff now appeals, arguing that the district court erred by characterizing him as an alien

crewman, which thereby rendered him statutorily ineligible to become a United States citizen because it meant that he had not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence . After careful review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background The parties stipulated to the following facts. Plaintiff, a native and citizen of the Philippines, entered the United States on May 27, 2001, with a C

- 1/D 2 visa to work on board a ship owned by Discovery Cruise Lines. Plaintiff worked as a

1 Section 1421(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code states that, “A person whose application for naturalization . . . is denied, after a hearing before an immigration officer . . . may seek review of such denial before the United States district court for the district in which such person resides. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c).

2 A C

- 1/D visa is a dual visa. A “ C

- 1 ” visa is given to a nonimmigrant alien who is in

“ immediate and continuous transit through the United States. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(C). A “D” v isa is given to a nonimmigrant alien serving aboard 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 v essel or aircraft.” Id. § 1101(a)(15)(D)(i); see also Matter of G

- D

- M

- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 82, 83 (BIA 2009).

Case: 15-10784 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 2 of 123 butcher on the ship for approximately two weeks before becoming ill. Approximately one more week passed, and b ecause Plaintiff was still sick , Discovery Cruise Lines began the process of arrang ing for him to de

- board the ship
to receive medical assistance in the United States. On June 29, 2001, Plaintiff was granted a temporary medical parole into the United States , valid only until July 28,
20 0 1 , pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)

. When Plaintiff de

- boarded the ship , employees of Discovery Cruise Lines escorted him to a doctor in Miami and remained with him at a hotel until he returned to the ship. After returning to the ship, Plaintiff worked for approximately one more week . Howe ver, because he was still ill, Discovery Cruise Lines once again arranged for him to see a doctor in Miami. But w hile in Miami, Plaintiff resigned from his position on the ship and Discovery Cruise Lines then arranged his travel back to the Philippines. Plaintiff, however, did not return to the Philippines , as he should have done. Instead, he remained in the United States , and later he married his current wife, Aileen, in 2002. In 2005, Aileen filed an I

- 130 petition for alien relative on behalf of Plaintiff and Plaintiff filed an I

- 485 application for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident based on his marriage to a United States citizen. On his adjustment of status appli cation, Plaintiff stated that his last entry into the United States was on May 27, 2001, and that his status upon entering was C

- 1.

Case: 15-10784 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 3 of 124 On June 13, 2006, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”) granted Plaintiff’s application and his stat us was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident. Upon becoming a lawful permanent resident, Plaintiff traveled outside of the United States multiple times between 2007 and 2012. He showed his lawful permanent resident card to immigration authoriti es each time he

re - entered the United States. On March 4, 2011, Plaintiff applied to become a United States citizen. Discovering that Plaintiff had been admitted to the United States as a crewman,
CIS determined that its approval of his adjustment of status application in 2005 had been in error and that , as a result, Plaintiff was not statutorily eligible to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident. Stated another way, because Plaintiff could not show that he had been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, he did
not meet all of the requirements necessary to become a naturalized citizen. Accordingly, CIS denied his application for citizenship and after Plaintiff appealed , it affirmed its denial of Plai ntiff’s application

. B. Procedural History In February 2014, Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) against the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; the Acting Director of the CIS; the District Director of the Miami District of CIS; the Director of the Kendal l Field Office of CIS; and the Attorney General of the United States, in their

Case: 15-10784 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 4 of 125 official capacities. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated his rights under the Immigration and Nation ality Act (“INA”) and the Administrative Procedures Act by denying his application for naturalization. Plaintiff l ater moved for summary judgment. He argued that notwithstanding his initial entry into the United States as only a crewman, he was eligible for adjustment of status based on his temporary medical parole into the United States on June 29, 2001

. From that premise, he further contend ed that he

was thereafter properly granted lawful permanent resident status , meaning that he
met this requirement for becoming a United States citizen

. 3 Defendants also moved for summary judgment , arguing that Plaintiff’s admission to the United
States on a crewm e n visa precluded any adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident, thereby rendering him statutorily ineligible for naturalization. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The district court concluded that the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c) , which bars alien crewm e n from adjusting status , in conjunction with the federal regulation governing the parole of alien crewm e n, 8 C.F.R. § 253.1, mean that Plaintiff’s temporary medical parole did not alter his status as a crewman. Because Plaintiff could not establish that he was lawfully admitted for permanent re sidence based on

3 Alternatively, Plaintiff also argued that even if he was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence based on his medical parole, he was subse quently admitted for permanent residence when he later traveled outside of the United State and gained r e - entry as a lawful permanent resident. The district court rejected this argument, and Plaintiff does not challenge this ruling on appeal. Case: 15-10784 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 5 of 126 t his medical parole, he failed to meet the statutory requirements for naturalization. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo

. United
States v. Jean

- Baptiste , 395 F.3d 1190, 1192 (11th Cir. 2005). The burden is on the party moving for summary judgment to establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Liese v. Indian River Cty. Hosp. Dist. , 701 F.3d 334, 341

– 4 2 (11th Cir. 2012). W e view al l evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non

- moving party. Id.
B. Applicable Law “American citizenship is a precious right.” Costello v. United States , 365 U.S. 265, 269 (1961). An individual who seeks to obtain naturalized United States citizenship must comply with the statutory requirements for naturalization. See Fedorenko v. United States , 449 U.S. 490, 505

– 06 (1981). These requirements require, among other things, that the alien show he was lawfully admitted for permanent re sidence in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a).
T he term “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” is defined as “the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance wi th the immigration laws.” 8

Case: 15-10784 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 6 of 127 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20). To be “ lawfully admitted for permanent residence , ” an alien’s adjustment to lawful permanent resident status must be “in compliance with the substantive requirements of the law

. ” Savoury v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 449 F.3d
1 307, 1313

– 18 (11th Cir. 2006). For that reason, we have held that an alien whose status was mistakenly adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident was not an alien lawfully admitted for that purpose

. See id. ( concluding that an alien was not eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility based on a mistaken adjustment of status done in violation of the substantive requirements of the law ). In order for an alien to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident, the alien must: (1) have been “inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States”; (2) apply for adjustment of status; (3) be eligible to receive an immigrant visa and be admissible to the United States; and (4) have an immigrant visa immediately available to him at th e time of filing. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)

. Alien crewm en , however, are explicitly barred from adjusting to lawful
perma nent resident status. Id . § 1255(c). An alien crewman is defined as “a person serving in any capacity on board a vessel or aircraft.” Id. § 1101(a)(10). Moreover, the definition of immigrant excludes “an alien crewman serving in good faith as such in a capacity required for normal operation and service on board a vessel . . . who intends to land temporarily and solely in pursuit of his calling as a
crewman.” Id. § 1101(a)(15)(D)(i).

Case: 15-10784 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 7 of 128 The INA provides that the Attorney General may, in his discretion and on a

case - by

- case basis, parole an alien into the United States temporarily for humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). C. Plaintiff was not S tatuto rily E ligible for N aturalization In order for Plaintiff to have been statutorily eligible for naturalization, he must show that he was lawfully admitted for permanent residence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). But alien crewmen are barred from adjusting to lawful permanent resident status

. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(20), 1255(c) ; see also Savoury , 449 F.3d at
1313

– 18

. And t here is no dispute that Plaintiff was an alien crewman on board a cruise s hip who was issued only a crewm e n visa for purposes of entry into this country. There is also no dispute that after his arrival, Plaintiff was granted a temporary medical paro le into the United States under § 1182(d)(5) to obtain treatment for an illness that had arisen while he was working on the ship

. Consequently, this case turns on a matter of first impression in our Court: whether Plaintiff’s grant of medical paro le under § 1182(d)(5) altered his crewman status. We conclude that it did not. We first address Plaintiff’s argument that he shed his “ alien crewman ” status under the INA once he became ill on board the ship and was allowed to temporarily de

- board for purposes of receiving medical treatment

. Plaintiff concedes that his initial entry in May 2001 was as a crewman, but he contends that

Case: 15-10784 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 8 of 129 by de

- boarding temporarily in June 2001 to receive medical treatment, he ceased “pursuit of his calling as a seaman

. ” Yet, in determin ing whether an alien should be classified as a crewman, we have stated that “the focal issue is whether [the alien] entered the United States in pursuit of his calling as a seaman.” Parzagonis v. I.N.S. , 747 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir. 1984). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) has further explained that it “examine[s] an alien’s visa and the circumstances surrounding his entry into the United States to determine if he entered as a crewman.” Matter of G

- D

- M

- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 82, 85 (BIA 2009). For the sake of this disc ussion, we will assume that a non - crewman alien who was medically paroled into the United States under § 1182(d)(5)(A) might later be eligible to adjust status . But the applicable statutes and regulations do not permit an alien crewman to bypass the statutory bar on his adjustment of status merely by the fortuity of a subsequent medical parole to treat an illness arising wh i le serving as a crew member. Section 253.1(e) of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations governs the parole of ali en crewmen . That provision states that an alien crewman without a conditional landing permit and in need of medical treatment or observation may be paroled into the United States pursuant to § 1182(d)(5). 8 C.F.R. § 253.1(e). But a n alien granted such p arole is to remain in the custody of the agent of the vessel , and the vessel is to cover the expenses of the medical treatment

. Id.

Case: 15-10784 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 9 of 1210 Reading this regulation together with § 1255(c)

— which clearly bars alien

crewm e n from adjusting to lawful permanent resid ent status

— we conclude that an alien crewman granted medical parole pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 253.1(e) does not cease being a crewman and thereby rid himself of the statutory bar on adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c); 8 C.F.R. § 253.1(e). In fact, the BIA has stated that Congress intended “to bar all occupational seam e n . . . who have relatively easy access to the United States [and] have used the seaman route to enter the United States for permanent residence.” Matter of Gonc a l ves , 10 I. & N. Dec . 277, 279 (BIA 1963). Nothing in the applicable statutes imply that an alien crewman who has been admitted as such , but who subsequently receives a medical parole while working on board a ship , thereby becomes eligible for adjustment of status

. Indeed, in the present case, it is clear that Plaintiff’s medical parole was obtained in pursuit of his calling as a seaman

. See Parzagonis , 747 F.2d at 1390; Matter of G

- D

- M

- , 25 I. & N. Dec. at 85. Having received only a crewm e n visa , Plaintiff fell ill while working on board the Discovery Cruise Lines ship. Consistent with the federal regulation governing the parole of alien crewm e n, Discovery Cruise Lines arranged for Plaintiff’s medical parole and his subsequent doctor’s visit s , and stayed with him at a hotel in Miami

. See 8 C.F.R. § 253.1(e). Notably , Plaintiff did in fact return to the ship after his first doctor’s visit

. And

once he decided to quit his position as a crewman, Discovery Cruise Lines

Case: 15-10784 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 10 of 1211 arranged for Plaintiff’s travel home to the Philippines. In short , Plaintiff’s visa and the circumstances surrounding his entry into the United States establish that he was

a crewman throughout the applicable period of time

. Plaintiff also argues that the district court errone ously interpreted 8 C.F.R. § 253.1(e) to mean that an alien paroled into the United States will remain an alien crewman forever

. The district court, however, did not make such a pronouncement. I nstead , it considered all of the circumstances surrounding
P laintiff’s entry in 2001 in reaching its conclusion that his entry was in pursuit of his calling as a seaman . 4 See Matter of G

- D

- M

- , 25 I. & N. Dec. at 85. We are also not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that the policy reasons for barring alien crewm e n from adjustment of status ceased to exist once he was allowed to seek temporary medical care while serving on board the ship. Given their “relatively easy access to the United States , ” al ien crewme n who have been admitted for the limited purpose o f pursuing their occupation are prohibited from taking advantage of this access to later adjust status. See Matter of Goncalves , 10
I. & N. Dec. at 2 79; 8 C.F.R. § 253.1(e)

. Again, Plaintiff was able to obtain a temporary medical parole, which expired on July 28, 2001, only because he had first been granted entry as an alien crewman.

4 The BIA has determined that an occupational crewman is not barred from adjustment of status if the alien’s most recent admission into the United States was not in pursuit of his calling as a seaman. See Matter of Rebelo , 13 I. & N. Dec. 84, 85

– 86 (BIA 196 8) (concluding that an alien was not barred from adjustment of status because, although he was occupationally a crewman, his most recent entry into the United States was as a visitor for pleasure).

Case: 15-10784 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 11 of 1212 In summary, b ecause Plaintiff was a crewman when he entered this country , he cannot establish that he was lawfully admitted for permanent residence. See 8
U.S.C. § § 1101(a)(20), 1255(c). As a result, Plaintiff does not meet the statutory requirements for naturalization. See 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. III. CONCLUSION
F or the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district
court. Case: 15-10784 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 12 of 12