FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l 13, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK

Honora ble J eromeFa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by * desig nation. [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 04- 16231 & 05- 11303

________________________ B I A N o. A 78- 660- 016 G E R M A R S C H E E R E R , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e ti ti on forR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( A p r i l 13, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d F A R R IS , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * B L A C K , C i rc ui tJudg e:Be causeScheerer’ s removal and asylum procee dings c ommenced after April 1, 1997, 1 the permanent provisions of IIRIRA g overn his petitions for review. Se c tio n 1 30 , c apti on e d “ Vo lks verhetzun g ” (Inc itement o f theMa sse s) , cri min alize s, in 2 relevant part, publicly

approvingof, denying, or otherwise trivializ ing an act c ommitt ed under 2 G e r m a rS c he e r e rpe ti ti ons thi s C our tforr e vi e w of t w o B oa r d of Im m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls (B IA ) d ec isio n s. F irst, S ch ee re r s ee k s r ev iew o f th e B IA ’s deci si on af

fi rm i ng , w i tho utop i ni on , an i m m i grati on j ud ge’ s ( IJ ’ s) order ( 1) de ny i ng hi s a ppl i c a ti on fora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe Im m i grati on and N ati on al i ty A ct(I N A ), 8 U . S . C . §§ 11 58 , 12 31 (b)( 3), as am ended by the I l l e ga l I m m i gr a ti on R e for m a nd I m m i gr a ntR e s pons i bi l i ty A c tof 1996 (I IR IR A ), P ub . L . N o. 10 4-20 8, 11 0 S t at . 30 09 (199 6) (a m ended b y the R E A L ID A c t o f 2 0 0 5 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 9 - 1 3 , 1 1 9 S ta t. 3 0 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ) , a n d ( 2 ) f in d in g h is 1 a p p lic a tio n f

r iv o lo u s . S e c o n d , S c h e e r e rc h a lle n g e s th e B I A ’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t, a s a n a rr iv in g a lie n in r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s , h e w a s in e lig ib le to r e o p e n h is proceedi ng s for an adj ustm entof st atus pu rs uantt o 8 C . F . R . § 1 24 5. 1(c) (8). A ft er r e v ie w , w e g r a n t th e p e titio n s in p a r t, a n d d e n y in p a r t. I . B AC KG R OU ND S chee re r, a nati ve and ci ti ze n o f G er m any, fl ed hi s hom el and i n 1 99 5 aft er he w as conv i ct ed and sent ence d t o 1 4 m on ths’ i m pri sonm entfor i nci ti ng ra ci al ha tr e d i n vi ol a ti on of

the G e r m a n P e na l C ode , S tr a fge s e t z buc h [ S t G B ] a r t . 130, §§ 3- 5 ( F . R . G . ) ( S e c ti on 130) . A c he m i s t , S c he e r e rpubl i s he d ar e por t , ba s e d on 2the rule of National Socialism in a manner capa ble of disturbingthe public order. StGB a rt. 130, §§ 3-5. 3 sa m pl es t aken from the si t e of the A uschw i t z c on ce ntra ti on ca m p, w hi ch al l eged the ga s a nd de l ous i ng c ha m be r s i n w hi c h m a s s ki l l i ngs oc c urr e d m a ni fe s t e d no resi d u al ch em i cal si g n s o f Z yk l o n B u se. F ro m th i s, S ch eerer inferred th e m ass k illin g s th a t o c c u rr e d d u r in g th e H o lo c a u s t c o u ld n o t h a v e h ap p e n e d a s is c om m onl y be l i e ve d. T he hi ghe s tc our ti n G e r m a ny uphe l d hi s c onvi c ti on a nd se nt ence . T o avo i d h i s s ent ence and l i kel y f uture prose cut i on i n G er m any, S chee re r f l e d t o S pa i n i n M a r c h 1996, a nd, fe a r i ng e xtr a di ti on, t o E ngl a nd i n J une 1996. A f t e ras e r i e s of

ne w s pa pe ra r ti c l e s ur ge d hi s e xtr a di ti on, S c he e r e rf l e d t o the U ni t ed S t at es , ent er i ng thi s c ou ntry on A ug ust9, 20 00 , as a c on di ti on al parol ee w i th ade pa r tur e da t e of no l a t e rtha n N ove m be r18, 2000. S c h e e r e rf

i l e d a n a p p l i c a ti o n fo ra s y l u m o n Oc t o b e r1 7 , 2 0 0 0 . On F e br ua r y 1, 2001, the I m m i gr a ti on a nd N a tur a l i z a ti on S e r vi c e ( I N S , now the D e pa r tm e ntof

H om e l a nd S e c ur i ty ( D H S ) ) i s s ue d hi m aR e fe rr a l N oti c e , i nfor m i ng S c h e e r e rth a t h is a p p lic a tio n w a s b e in g r e fe rr e d to a n I J , to w h o m h e c o u ld a g a in d ir e c t h is a s y lu m r e q u e s t. O n A p r il 2 , 2 0 0 1 , th e I N S is s u e d S c h e e r e raN o tic e to A ppe a r , f

i ndi ng hi m r e m ovabl e pur s ua ntt o 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) for fa ilu r e to p o s s e s s av a lid e n tr y d o c u m e n t.As Sc he erer renewe d his a sylum app lic atio n inthe seremov al proc e e din g s, his 3 application wa s deeme d to state claims for both a sylum and withholding of removal. See8 C.F.R. § 208.3(b) ( “An a sylum application shall be deemed to constitute at the same time an application for

withholding of removal . . . .”) . The B IA first entered an order aff irming theIJ ’s dec ision on S eptember 17, 2004. To 4 correct a defe ct in the servic e of that decision, however, the B IA vac ated that order, reinstated the proc eeding s, and reissued its affirmanc e on November 8, 2004. 4 A n I J c onduc t e d s e ve r a l he a r i ngs on S c he e r e r ’ s a s y l um a ppl i c a ti on f r om S e pt e m be r2001 unt i l J une 2003, ul ti m a t e l y i s s ui ng ade c i s i on f i ndi ng, i n r e l e va nt part : (1) S chee re r w as re m ov abl e a s c harged i n the N ot i ce t o A pp ear; (2) S chee re r pres ent ed no cogn i zabl e c l ai m of pastpers ec ut i on or a w el l -fou nd ed fe arof future p er se cu ti o n en ti tl in g h im to as ylu m o r w ith h o ld in g o f r em o v al; an d (3 ) S ch ee re r’s 3 as yl um appl i ca ti on w as fr i vo l ou s. S chee re r app ea l ed the IJ ’ s order , and the B IA a f f i r m e d w i thoutopi ni on on N ove m be r8, 2004. 4 O n D ec em ber 7, 20 04 , S chee re r m ov ed the B IA t o reopen h i s c as e for an a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s to th a t o f

ala w f u l p e r m a n e n t r e s id e n t a lie n b a s e d o n h is S e p te m b e r1 1 , 2 0 0 4 , m a rr ia g e to aU n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n . T h e B I A d e n ie d h is m ot i on on M ar ch 3, 20 05 , fi nd i ng S chee re r, an arri vi ng al i en i n rem ov al proceedi ng s, w as subj ec tt o a re gu l at ory bar , 8 C . F . R . § 1 24 5. 1(c) (8), w hi ch r e n d e r e d h i m i n e l i g i b l e t o a p p l y fo ra d j u s tm e n to f

s t a tu s . S c h e e r e rth e n f i l e d t wo ti m e l y p e ti ti o n s fo rr e v i e w o f b o th B I A d e c i s i o n s wi th th i s C o u r t , wh i c h we c o n s o lid a te d a n d d o c k e te d fo ro r a l a r g u m e n t.See W eng v. U .S. Att’y Ge n. , 287 F.3d 1335, 1337 ( 11th Cir. 2002) (stating , under the 5 permanent provisions of IIRIRA, “even if a petition for reviewis filed, IIRIRA permits the [DHS] to remove aliens immediately followinga B IA dec ision, and allows aliens to continue their app e als f ro m a broad” ); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3)(B) (replacing8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) ). 5 I n N o v e m b e r2 0 0 5 , S c h e e r e rw a s r e m o v e d to G e r m a n y a f te rth is C o u r t d e n ie d h is e m e r g e n c y m o tio n to s ta y r e m o v a l p e n d in g th is a p p e a l. D e s p ite h is re m ov al , S chee re r’ s app ea l cont i nu es un abat ed and rai se s three i ss ues: (1) w hether 5 th e B I A e rr e d in d e n y in g h is p e titio n fo ra s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l; ( 2) w he the rthe B I A e rr e d i n f i ndi ng hi s a s y l um a ppl i c a ti on w a s f r i vol ous ; a nd ( 3 ) w h e th e rth e A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l e x c e e d e d h i s a u th o r i ty i n p r o mu l g a ti n g 8 C. F. R. § 1 24 5. 1(c) (8). I I . DI S C US S I ON A. C l ai m f

orA sy l um and Wi thholdi ng of R e m ov al W h er e th e B IA su m m ar il y a ff irm s th e I J’s d ec isio n , w e r ev iew th e I J’s d e c is io n a s if

it w e r e th e B I A ’s . A l Na jja rv . A s h c ro

ft , 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 01 ). W e r evi ew the IJ ’ s deni al of an as yl um appl i ca ti on un der a“ subst ant i al e v id e n c e ” s ta n d a r d . “T h e [ I J ’s ] fa c tu a l d e te r m in a tio n th a t [ a n a lie n ] is r e m o v ab le and n otent i t l ed t o asy l um m ustbe up hel d i f i ti s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence. ” M az ar i e gos v . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 2 4 1 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .

“ [ A ] de ni a l of

a s y l um m a y be r e ve r s e d o n ly i f the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d by the6

a ppl i c a nti s s o pow e r f

ul tha tar e a s onabl e fa c t f i nde rw oul d ha ve t o c onc l ude the re qu i si t e f

ear of per se cut i on exi st s. ” I d. T o b e e l i gi bl e for as yl um , the appl i ca ntbear s the bu rden of prov i ng st atut ory “r e f u g e e ” s ta tu s . See 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) ; 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) . T ha ti s , the a l i e n m us t , w i th s pe c i f

i c a nd c r e di bl e e vi de nc e , e s t abl i s h ( 1) pa s tpe r s e c uti on on a c c ountof

r a c e , r e l i gi on, na ti ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n apa r ti c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or po l i ti ca l op i ni on ; or (2) aw el l -fou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a s ta tu to r ily - p r o te c te d g r o u n d . See 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) . A n al i en m ay es t abl i sh pastpers ec ut i on or a w el l -fou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on un der atheory of i m pu t ed po l i ti ca l op i ni on w here he show s apo l i ti ca l op i ni on w as corr ec t l y or i ncorrec t l y a ttri bu t ed t o h i m and h e w as pers ec ut ed b e c a u s e o f

th a t o p in io n . Se e A lNaj j ar , 257 F . 3d a t1289. F e a rof pr os e c uti on un der fai rl y a dm i ni st er ed l aw s, on the other hand, do es no tordi nari l y e nt i t l e a n a lie n to a s y lu m o rw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. Se e , e . g. , B arre to-C l aro v. U . S. A t t ’y G e n. , 275 F . 3d 1334, 1340 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i ti ng J a n u s i a kv . I

NS , 947 F . 2d 46 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ) . I f , how e ve r , the a l i e n s how s the pr os e c uti on i s ba s e d on a s ta tu to r ily - p r o te c te d g r o u n d , a n d if th e p u n is h m e n t u n d e rth a t la w is s u f f ic ie n tly e xtr e m e t o c ons ti tut e pe r s e c ut i on, the l a w m a y pr ovi de the ba s i s fora s y l um or w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l e v e n if

th e la w is g e n e r a lly a p p lic ab le . S e e Ch a n g v . I NS ,7

1 1 9 F .3 d 1 0 5 5 , 1 0 6 0 - 6 1 ( 3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ; Ab e d i n iv . I NS , 9 7 1 F .2 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 1 - 9 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ; B ehzadp ou r v . Uni ted Stat es , 94 6 F . 2d 13 51 , 13 53 (8th C i r. 19 91 ). S c h e e r e rr e lie s o n tw o th e o r ie s to a r g u e th e I J e rr e d in h o ld in g h e fa ile d to e s tab lis h s ta tu to r y “r e f

u g e e ” s ta tu s . F ir s t, c h a r a c te r iz in g h is r e p o r t a s p u r e ly s c i e nti f i c , hi s t or i c a l , a nd fa c tua l , S c he e r e rc ont e nds the G e r m a n gove r nm e nt as cr i bed an ant i -S em i ti c i deol og y t o h i s r es earc h, there by pers ec ut i ng hi m un der S ec ti on 13 0 for an i m pu t ed po l i ti ca l op i ni on . S ec on d, S chee re r argues he w as pe r s e c ut e d unde rage ne r a l l y - a ppl i c abl e l a w be c a us e hi s pr os e c uti on unde rS e c ti on 13 0 w as po l i ti ca l l y m ot i vat ed and res ul t ed i n d i spropo rti on at el y s ever e p u n is h m e n t. W e r e

je c t b o th a r g u m e n ts . A s t o S c he e r e r ’ s f

i r s ta r gum e nt , the a dm i ni s tr a ti ve r e c or d i s de voi d of a ny evi dence thatthe G er m an go vernm entas cr i bed a po l i ti ca l op i ni on t o h i m and then p u n is h e d h im fo rth a t im p u te d b e lie f . R a th e r , a s th e I J h e ld , th e e v id e n c e o n ly re fl ec t s thatS chee re r w as “ hel d t o acc ou ntby a hi gh l y devel op ed and sop hi sti ca t ed le g a l s y s te m , . . . r e c e iv e d d u e p r o c e s s , w a s c o n v ic te d , a n d s e n te n c e d to ate r m w e ll b e lo w th e s ta tu to r ily e s tab lis h e d m a x im u m .” S u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e th u s s u p p o r ts the IJ ’ s c on cl usi on thatthe on l y i nfer ence t o b e dra w n from the re cord i s that

“ [S chee re r] has bee n subj ec t ed t o l egi ti m at e prose cut i on ” i n G er m any. S chee re r ha s , the r e for e , fa i l e d t o pr oduc e s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o c om pe l af i ndi ng tha theSpecifically , the IJref erred to the ca ses of Günter De ckert and Otto Remer, who w ere 6 sentenc ed to 24 months’ and 20 months’ imprisonment, respectively , for the same crime. In h oldingSc he erer’ s p unishment i s n ot p ers e c utory , w edono t me an tosu g g e st a 7 sentenc e of 14 months’ imprisonment can never constitute perse cution. We merely hold that, on 8 s uf fe r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, orha s aw e l l - founde d fe a rof f utur e pe r s e c uti on, on a c c o u n t o f

a n im p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n . T u rn in g to h is se co n d ar g u m en t, su b stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rts th e I J’s concl usi on thatS chee re r c anno tes t abl i sh pastpers ec ut i on , or a w el l -fou nd ed fe ar o f fu tu re p ersecu ti o n , u n d er a g en eral l y-ap p l i cab l e l aw . W e n eed n o tad d ress w hether S chee re r’ s prose cut i on un der S ec ti on 13 0 w as po l i ti ca l l y m ot i vat ed be c a us e he fa i l e d t o e s t abl i s h hi s s e nt e nc e t o 14 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e ntw a s , a s he a r gue s , “ e xtr e m e a nd di s pr opor ti ona t e ” puni s hm e ntr i s i ng t o the l e ve l of pers ec ut i on . S chee re r off er s no sub st ant i ve ar gu m enton thi s poi nt , re l yi ng i nst ea d on concl usory s pecul ati on fr om the l aw ye r w ho defe nd ed hi m i n h i s G er m an prosec ut i on that“ the se nt ence appears t o b e i napp ropri at el y hi gh . ” T he re cord si m pl y does notsupp ortthi s a ss er ti on . A s the IJ em ph as i ze d, S chee re r’ s s ent ence w as w el l bel ow the st atut ory m axi m um of 5 years ’ i m pri sonm entand o thers co n v i ct ed o f th e sam e cri m e h av e received si g n i fi can t l y h arsh er sen t en ces. W e 6 thus a gr e e w i th the I J tha t“ [ t ] he t ot a l i ty of the r e c or d doe s notr e ve a l a ny subst ant i al basi s for fi nd i ng [S chee re r’ s] 14 -m on th sent ence t o b e di spropo rti on at e, and ei ther e spec i al l y uncon sc i on abl e or m er el y apret ext . ” A s are sul t , S chee re r 7this particular record, Scheerer’ s sentencewas not, as hecontends, “ extreme and

disproportionate” punishment rising to the level of perse cution. B e c aus eheha s f

aile d todemon strateheis eligibl efor a sylum , Sche erer h a s n e c e ssa ri ly 8 failed to meet the higher burden of proof require d for withholdingof removal. See A l Najjar , 257 F.3d at 1292-93, 1303. 9 has fai l ed t o carry hi s burden o f e st abl i shi ng pastpers ec ut i on , or a w el l -fou nd ed fe a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n , d u e to h is p r o s e c u tio n u n d e rag e n e r a lly - a p p lic ab le G e r m a n la w . O n thi s r ec ord, subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the IJ ’ s c on cl usi on s that S chee re r w as un abl e t o est abl i sh pastpers ec ut i on , or a w el l -fou nd ed fe arof future p ersecu ti o n , ei th er o n acco u n to f an i m p u t ed p o l i ti cal o p i n i o n o r u n d er a g en eral l ya ppl i c abl e l a w . W e a c c or di ngl y a f f i r m the de ni a l of

S c he e r e r ’ s c l a i m fora s y l um a n d w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. 8 B. F r i v ol ous A sy l um Appl i c at i on S chee re r nextar gu es the IJ erre d i n fi nd i ng hi s a sy l um appl i ca ti on w as f r iv o lo u s . H e a s s e r ts , m o r e s p e c if ic a lly , th e f

in d in g la c k s s u p p o r t fo rtw o r e a s o n s . F i rs t , S chee re r argues the IJ base d the fr i vo l ou snes s f i nd i ng on a det er m i nat i on that he w a s notc r e di bl e , w i thoutc onc l udi ng am a t e r i a l e l e m e ntof hi s a s y l um appl i ca ti on w as del i bera t el y fabri ca t ed. S ec on d, he cont ends he w as no taf forded a n o p p o r tu n i ty t o a c c o u n tfo ra n y d i s c r e p a n c i e s o ri mp l a u s i b l e a s p e c t s o f h i s c l a i m.10

“ We r e v i e w de no vo the st atut ory i nt erpret ati on fi nd i ng by the [B IA ] that[a n appl i ca nt ] fi l ed a f

ri vo l ou s a sy l um appl i ca ti on un der S ec ti on 11 58 (d)( 6). ” B a rreto -C l a ro , 2 7 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 8 . “T h is p le n a r y r e v ie w is , h o w e v e r , te m p e r e d w ith d e fe r e n c e to th e [ B I A ’s in te rp r e ta tio n ],” if r e a s o n ab le . I

d. I f a n a l i e n know i ngl y f

i l e s af r i vol ous a ppl i c a ti on fora s y l um ha vi ng re ce i ved n ot i ce of the consequences of f i l i ng such a f

ri vo l ou s app l i ca ti on , the al i en i s p e r ma n e n t l y i n e l i g i b l e t o r e c e i v e i mmi g r a ti o n b e n e f i t s . 8 U . S. C. § 1158( d) ( 4) ( A ) , ( d) ( 6) . U nde r8 C . F . R . § 208. 20: [ A ]n a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n is f r iv o lo u s if

a n y o f its m a te r ia l e le m e n ts is de l i be r a t e l y fabr i c a t e d. S uc h f i ndi ng s ha l l onl y be m a de i f the i m m i gr a ti on j udge or[ B I A ] i s s a ti s f i e d tha tthe appl i c a nt , dur i ng the c our s e of the pr oc e e di ngs , ha s ha d s uf f i c i e ntoppor tuni ty t o a c c ount fo ra n y d is c r e p a n c ie s o rim p la u s ib le a s p e c ts o f th e c la im . B e c a u s e th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f af in d in g o f f r iv o lo u s n e s s a r e s o s e v e r e , 8 C . F . R . § 208. 20 de l i ne a t e s as pe c i f i c f r a m e w ork the I J m us tfol l ow be for e m a ki ng s uc h af i ndi ng. T he I J m us tf

i r s tf i nd m a t e r i a l a s pe c t s of

the a l i e n’ s a s y l um a ppl i c a ti on w e r e de m ons tr abl y fa l s e a nd s uc h fabr i c a ti ons w e r e know i ngl y a nd d e lib e r a te ly m a d e . Id .; see a lso B a rreto -C l a ro , 2 7 5 F . 3 d at1 3 3 9 . T h e al i en m u st the n be gi ve n a m pl e oppor tuni ty dur i ng hi s he a r i ng t o a ddr e s s a nd a c c ountfora ny de l i be r a t e , m a t e r i a l fabr i c a ti ons upon w hi c h the I J m a y ba s e af i ndi ng of f r iv o lo u s n e s s . I

d. U n d er 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 2 0 , th erefo re, a fi n d i n g o f fri v o l o u sn essTheSe venthCirc uit re ac he d thesamec on c lus ioninLin v. Gonzales , 1 4 0Fe d . Ap p x. 9 621, 623-24 (7th Cir. 2005). As an unpublished opinion, however, Linlacks precedential authority and is not binding on the Seventh Circuit. See7thCir . R. 53 ; Nazarova v . I NS , 171 F.3d 478, 485 ( 7th Cir. 1999). 11 c a nnots t a nd w i thoutas pe c i f i c f i ndi ng i n the f

i r s ti ns t a nc e tha tthe appl i c a nt d e lib e r a te ly fab r ic a te d m a te r ia l p o r tio n s o f h is a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n . I d. W e h av e n ev er ad d ressed , h o w ev er, w h eth er a fi n d i n g o f fri v o l o u sn ess u n d e r8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .2 0 f lo w s d ir e c tly f

r o m a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility d e te r m in a tio n . I n M uh an na v. G on zal es , o n th e o th er h an d , th e T h i rd C i rcu i th el d an ad v erse cr edi bi l i ty det er m i nat i on al on e c anno tsupp orta f i nd i ng of fr i vo l ou snes s; ra ther, the I J m us tm a ke s pe c i f i c f i ndi ngs a s t o w hi c h m a t e r i a l e l e m e nt s of the a s y l um a ppl i c a ti on w e r e de l i be r a t e l y fa l s i f i e d, a s r e qui r e d by 8 C . F . R . § 208. 20. 399 F . 3d 582, 588- 89 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . N ot i ng the I J pr i m a r i l y ba s e d the f i ndi ng of f r iv o lo u s n e s s o n h e ro p in io n th a t th e a lie n w a s “s o m e o n e w h o is n o t h o n e s t a t a ll,” the T hi r d C i r c ui the l d: [ U ] nde r8 C . F . R . § 208. 20 af i ndi ng of f r i vol ous ne s s doe s notf

l ow a u to m a tic a lly f

r o m a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility d e te r m in a tio n . . . . I n c o n s is te n c ie s b e tw e e n te s tim o n y a n d a n a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n , w h ile c e r t a i nl y r e l e va ntt o ac r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na ti on tha tm a y r e s ul ti n the d en i al o f an ap p l i can t ’ s asyl u m cl ai m , d o n o teq u at e t o a fri v o l o u sn ess fi nd i ng un der S ec ti on 11 58 (d)( 6), w hi ch carr i es w i th i tm uch g re at er c ons e que nc e s . I ti s be c a us e of thos e s e ve r e c ons e que nc e s tha tthe re gu l ati on re qu i re s m ore: a f i nd i ng of del i bera t e fabri ca ti on of a “ m at er i al el em ent ” of a n app l i ca ti on , pl us an op po rtun i ty for the al i en t o acco u n tfo r i n co n si st en ci es. I d. 9TheIJ foundSc he erer w a s n ot cre dib lebe c aus eheadmitted tous ingthepen n ame 10 “Ernst Gauss,” and referre d to Otto Remer (who, like Sche erer, wa s convicted f or incitingrac ial hatre d through his public questioning of theHolocaust) a s a “f riend” and “another German.” See Otto Reme r, 84, Nazi Off

icer; H elped Foil Anti-Hitler Plot , N.Y. Times, Oc tober 9, 1997, at D22. 12 W e a gr e e w i th the T hi r d C i r c ui ttha tbe c a us e 8 C . F . R . § 208. 20 m a nda t e s the I J s p e c if ic a lly f in d m a te r ia l e le m e n ts o f a n a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n w e r e d e lib e r a te ly fabr i c a t e d, a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na ti on a l one c a nnots uppor taf i ndi ng of f r i vol ous ne s s . A s i n M uhanna , the I J i n thi s c a s e di d nots uppor tthe f i ndi ng of f r i vol ous ne s s by r e fe r e nc e t o a ny s pe c i f i c m a t e r i a l fa l s e hoods i n S c he e r e r ’ s a s y l um a p p lic a tio n . I n s te a d , th e f in d in g w a s p r im a r ily b a s e d o n S c h e e r e r ’s u n te n ab le d e fe n s e t o h i s p r o s e c u ti o n i n G e r ma n y , th e l e g a l i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f

h i s a s y l u m c l a i m, a nd the I J ’ s c onc l us i on tha tS c he e r e r“ i s notabove fa l s e hood. ” T he I J thus 10 c o n s id e r e d th e le g a l in s u f f ic ie n c y o f

S c h e e r e r ’s c la im a n d a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility de t e r m i na t i on t o be c oe xt e ns i ve w i th af i ndi ng of f r i vol ous ne s s w i thoute xa m i ni ng w h a t s p e c if

ic , m a te r ia l a s p e c ts o f

S c h e e r e r ’s a p p lic a tio n w e r e k n o w in g ly fa ls e . T h ese fi n d i n g s w ere i n su ffi ci en tt o su p p o rta fi n d i n g o f fri v o l o u sn ess. T h e IJ, the r e for e , e rr e d i n c onc l udi ng S c he e r e r ’ s a ppl i c a ti on fora s y l um w a s f r i vol ous a nd w e a c c or di ngl y va c a t e tha tpa r tof the B I A ’ s N ove m be r8, 2004, de c i s i on a f f i r m i ng tha tf i ndi ng.After carefully consideringthe other a

rguments raised w ith respec t to this issue, we 11 c on c ludethey

arewithout merit anddono t di scus s them. 13 C. V al i di t y of 8 C . F . R . § 1245. 1( c ) ( 8) F i na l l y , S c he e r e rc ont e nds the r e gul a t or y ba rpr ohi bi ti ng hi m f r om a ppl y i ng fo ra n a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s , 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .1 ( c ) ( 8 ) , is in v a lid b e c a u s e it c o n f lic ts w i th con gres si on al i nt entas expres se d i n the go verni ng st atut e, 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 5(a) . F or the re as on s s etforth b el ow , w e a gree . 11 W e r e vi e w que s ti ons of s t a tut or y i nt e rpr e t a ti on a nd othe ri s s ue s of l a w de n o v o . Se e Uni te d State s v . Trai nor , 37 6 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). W hen r e v ie w in g a n a g e n c y ’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f as ta tu te it a d m in is te r s , h o w e v e r , w e a p p ly the t w o- s t e p t e s ta r ti c ul a t e d i n C h e v ro n U .S .A ., I n c . v . Na tu ra l R e s . D e

f. C o u n c il, Inc. , 4 6 7 U .S . 8 3 7 , 8 4 2 - 4 4 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 7 7 8 , 2 7 8 1 - 8 2 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . See al so L ew i s v . B a rn h a rt , 285 F . 3d 1329, 1333 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . F i r s t , w e m us tde t e r m i ne

“ w hether C on gres s has di re ctl y s po ken t o the preci se qu es ti on ati ss ue. ” C he v ron , 467 U . S . a t842, 104 S . C t . a t2781. “ I f the i nt e ntof

C ongr e s s i s c l e a r , tha ti s the e nd of the m a tt e r ; forthe c our t , a s w e l l a s the a ge nc y , m us tgi ve e f fe c tt o the un am bi gu ou sl y e xp re ss ed i nt entof C on gres s. ” I d. at84 2-43 , 10 4 S . C tat27 81 . If C o n g r e s s h a s n o t d ir e c tly a d d r e s s e d th e m a tte r , o rif th e s ta tu te is a m b ig u o u s w ith r e s pe c tt o the m a tt e r , w e m ove t o C he v ron ’ s s e c ond s t e p t o de c i de “ w he the rtheIn responseto early criticism of the re gulation, the Attorney General reference d the 12 statute it impl ements. “[I]tis noted,” the Attorney General stated, “that [8 U.S .C. § 1255] c le arly andun ambi guo us ly

state s th at adju stment o f s tatus is a dis cretio na

ry de c isi on , s ub

je c t to such re gulatory

limit ations as the Attorney General may

prescribe.” 62 Fe d. Reg . 10312, 10326- 27 (1997). 14 agency ’ s [ re gu l ati on ] i s bas ed on a per m i ss i bl e c on structi on of the st atut e. ” I d. at 8 4 3 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 7 8 2 . W here C on gres s has no tm er el y fai l ed t o add re ss a pre ci se qu es ti on , bu thas g iv e n a n “e x p r e s s d e le g a tio n o f a u th o r ity to th e a g e n c y to e lu c id a te as p e c if ic prov i si on of the st atut e by r egul ati on , ” the agency’ s “ l egi sl ati ve re gu l ati on s are g iv e n c o n tr o llin g w e ig h t u n le s s th e y a r e a rb itr a r y , c a p r ic io u s , o rm a n ife s tly contrary t o the st atut e. ” I d. at84 3-44 , 10 4 S . C t . at27 78 . Indeed, “ j ud i ci al de fe r e nc e t o the E xe c ut i ve B r a nc h i s e s pe c i a l l y a ppr opr i a t e i n the i m m i gr a ti on cont extw here offi ci al s ‘ exer ci se es peci al l y s ensi ti ve po l i ti ca l funct i on s that i m pl i ca t e questi on s of forei gn re l ati on s. ’ ” INSv. A g u i rre-A g u i rre , 526 U . S . 415, 425, 119 S . C t . 1439, 1445 ( 1999) ( quoti ng I NS v . A budu , 4 8 5 U . S. 9 4 , 1 1 0 , 1 0 8 S. C t . 90 4, 91 5 (19 88 )) . T o a s s e s s th e v a lid ity o f 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .1 ( c ) ( 8 ) , w e b e g in w ith th e s ta tu te it i m pl e m e nt s , 8 U . S . C . § 1255. U nde rtha tpr ovi s i on: 12 T h e s ta tu s o f

a n a lie n w h o w a s in s p e c te d a n d a d m itte d o rp a r o le d in to th e U n ite d S ta te s . . . m a y b e a d ju s te d b y th e A tto r n e y G e n e r a l, in h is di s c r e ti on a nd unde rs uc h r e gul a ti ons a s he m a y pr e s c r i be , t o tha tof an al i en l aw ful l y a dm i tt ed for permanent r es i dence i f ( 1) the al i en m a k e s a n a p p lic a tio n fo rs u c h a d ju s tm e n t, ( 2 ) th e a lie n is e lig ib le to15

r e c e i ve a n i m m i gr a ntvi s aa nd i s a dm i s s i bl e t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s for p e r m a n e n t r e s id e n c e , a n d ( 3 ) a n im m ig r a n t v is ais im m e d ia te ly a va i l abl e t o hi m a tthe t i m e hi s a ppl i c a ti on i s f i l e d. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 ( a ) . I n a d d itio n to th is g e n e r a l a d ju s tm e n t p r o v is io n , th e s ta tu te r e n d e r s s e v e r a l c a t e g o r i e s o f a l i e n s i n e l i g i b l e fo rs u c h r e l i e f . Pu r s u a n tt o 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 5 ( c ) , a lie n c r e w m e n , a lie n s w h o a c c e p t u n a u th o r iz e d e m p lo y m e n t o ra r e in u n l aw fu l i m m i g rat i o n st atu s, al i en s d ep o rt ab l e fo r en g ag i n g i n t erro ri stact i v i ti es, a nd c e r t a i n a l i e ns w i th vi s ade fe c t s orothe rpr obl e m s w i th the i ri m m i gr a ti on s t a tus c a n n o t a v a il th e m s e lv e s o f a n a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s u n d e rs u b s e c tio n ( a ) . T h e r e g u la tio n a t is s u e , 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .1 ( c ) ( 8 ) , o p e r a te s w ith in th is s t a tut or y f

r a m e w ork t o ba ra nothe rc a t e gor y of a l i e ns f r om a ppl y i ng fora dj us tm e nt of s t a tus , pr ovi di ng: T he fol l ow i ng c a t e gor i e s of a l i e ns a r e i ne l i gi bl e t o a ppl y for adj ustm entof st atus t o thatof a l aw ful perm anentre si dental i en un der [ 8 U . S . C . § 1255]

. . . . A ny arri vi ng al i en w ho i s i n rem ov al proceedi ng s pursuantt o [8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 2 5 (b )( 1 ) o r 1 2 2 9 a].8 C.F.R. § 1245.1(c) (8) is identical to 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)( 8). Section 1245.1(c )(8) 13 app lie s totheExe c uti veOf fi c efor Immi gratio n Review i n theDepa rtment o f Jus tic e , whil e § 245 .1 (c )( 8) app lie s totheimmigratio n ag enc ie s intheDH S. A s p art of theHo melandSe c urity Act of 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2125 (2002), which abolished the INS and transferre d its functions to the DHS, the regulations wereduplicated f rom Chapter I , renumbered in the 1000 series, and place d in Chapter V of Title 8. Whi le we c ite to the Chapter V regulations, the same re gulations can befound in Chapter I . 16 8 C . F . R . § 1 24 5. 1(c) (8). O ur t as k i s thu s t o d et er m i ne w hether, un der C he v ron ’s 13 t w o-st ep anal ys i s, thi s r egul ati on ac cords w i th con gres si on al i nt entas m ani fe st ed i n the gove r ni ng s t a tut e , 8 U . S . C . § 1255. W e are no tthe fi rs tci rc ui tcourtt o con si der thi s questi on . O ne ci rc ui thas u p h e ld 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .1 ( c ) ( 8 ) , w h ile th r e e c ir c u its h a v e in v a lid a te d it. I n M ou el l e v . G on zal es , the E i gh th C i rc ui thel d 8 C . F . R . § 1 24 5. 1(c) (8) i s val i d as ar e a s o n ab le e x e r c is e o f th e A tto r n e y G e n e r a l’s r u le - b a s e d d is c r e tio n u n d e r§ 1 2 5 5 . 416 F . 3d 923, 930 ( 8th C i r . 2005) . T he c our tf i r s topi ne d tha tbe c a us e § 1255 gi ve s the A tt or ne y G e ne r a l di s c r e ti ona r y a uthor i ty t o gr a ntorde ny r e l i e f on the m eri t s, h e co u l d , co n si st en tw i th th atau th o ri ty, p ro m u l g at e a fu n ct i o n al l yin d is tin g u is h ab le r e g u la tio n r e n d e r in g ap a r tic u la rc la s s o f a lie n s in e lig ib le to a p p ly fo rr e lie f in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e . I

d. at92 8-30 . T hu s, un der C he v ron ’ s f i r s ts t e p, the c o u r t d e te r m in e d § 1 2 5 5 is a m b ig u o u s r e g a r d in g th e A tto r n e y G e n e r a l’s a u th o r ity to m a k e e lig ib ility d e te r m in a tio n s . I d. at92 9-30 . U nd er C he v ron ’ s s e c ond s t e p, th e c o u r t h e ld th e r e g u la tio n is ap e r m is s ib le c o n s tr u c tio n o f th e g o v e r n in g s ta tu te be c a us e the A tt or ne y G e ne r a l ’ s j us ti f i c a ti on forthe r e gul a ti on w a s r e a s onabl e , a nd17

the r e gul a t i on a c c or ds w i th C ongr e s s ’ s i nt e ntunde rI I R I R A t o e xpe di t e the r e m o v a l o f

a rr iv in g a lie n s . Id . A c c o r d i n g l y , th e Ei g h th Ci r c u i tu p h e l d 8 C. F. R. § 1 2 4 5 .1 ( c ) ( 8 ) . T he F i r s t , T hi r d, a nd N i nth C i r c ui t s , how e ve r , ha ve i nva l i da t e d the re gu l ati on . T he F i rs tand N i nth C i rc ui t s r es ol ved the qu es ti on un der C he v ron ’s f ir s t s te p , n o tin g w h ile § 1 2 5 5 g iv e s th e A tto r n e y G e n e r a l d is c r e tio n a r y a u th o r ity to g r a n t r e lie f

o n th e m e r its , C o n g r e s s c a r e f u lly a n d u n a m b ig u o u s ly d e f in e d b y s ta tu te the c a t e gor i e s of

a l i e ns e l i gi bl e t o a ppl y , i n the f i r s ti ns t a nc e , fora dj us tm e ntof s ta tu s . S u c c a rv . A s h c ro ft , 3 9 4 F .3 d 8 , 2 9 ( 1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; accord B on a v. G on zal es , 42 5 F . 3d 66 3, 66 8-70 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). B oth ci rc ui t s opi ne thatw hen C o n g r e s s in te n d e d to lim it th o s e c a te g o r ie s o f a lie n s e lig ib le to a p p ly fo rr e lie f , it s p e c if ic a lly a n d e x p lic itly d id s o in § 1 2 5 5 ( c ) , e v e n p r o v id in g fo re x c e p tio n s to th o s e e x c lu s io n s in § 1 2 5 5 ( i) . Se e Suc c ar , 3 9 4 F .3 d a t 2 5 - 2 6 ; B ona , 42 5 F . 3d at 66 9. T he F i rs tand N i nth C i rc ui t s r ea son b ec ause 8 C . F . R . § 1 24 5. 1(c) (8) i s a n e l i gi bi l i ty r e s tr i c ti on w hi c h “ r e de f i ne s c e r t a i n a l i e ns a s i ne l i gi bl e t o a ppl y for a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . . . w h o m as ta tu te , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 ( a ) , d e f in e s a s e lig ib le to appl y[ , ] ” the re gu l ati on i s i nv al i d as c on trary t o C on gres s’ s c l earl y e xp re ss ed in te n t. Suc c ar , 3 9 4 F .3 d a t 9 ; ac c ord B ona , 4 2 5 F .3 d a t 6 7 0 . Th e Th i r d Ci r c u i tj o i n e d th e Fi r s ta n d N i n th Ci r c u i t s i n i n v a l i d a ti n g 8 C. F. R. § 1 2 4 5 .1 ( c ) ( 8 ) , a lb e it u n d e rd if fe r e n t r e a s o n in g . Zheng v. G on zal es , 422 F . 3d 98Lopezinv olv e d 1 8 U .S. C. § 36 21 (e )( 2) (B ), whic h give s theB ure au o f Pri so ns (B OP) 14 discretionary

authority to grant an e arly

rele ase to prisoners convicte d of nonviolent offenses who succ essfully

complete a

substance a

buse treatment program. Prisoners c onvicted of a violent offensearenot eligible f or such relief. Id. Pursuant to its authorityunder § 3 62 1( e )( 2) (B ), theB OP i ssu e d a re gulatio n, 28 C.F .R. § 5 50 .5 8( a)( 1) (vi) (B ), denyinge arly rele ase to prisoners who commit a felony involving a f

irea rm. Lopez argued the regulation was invalid because “by

identifying a

class of inmate s ineligible f or sentenc e re ductions under § 3621(e) (2)( B) , . . . Congress has ba rre d the B ureau from identifying f urther c ateg ories of ineligible inmate s.” Lopez , 531 U.S. at 239, 121 S. Ct . at 721. The Supreme Court reje cted the argument that the statutory elig ibility

standards preempted f

urther regulation. See id. at 240-41, 121 S. Ct . at 721-22. Additionally , the Court validated the regulation under Chevron ’s two-step analy sis, holding the statute did not answer “theprec ise question at issue,” and the re gulation was ba sed on a reasona

ble interpretation of the statute. Id. at 241-45, 121 S. Ct. at 722-24.

18 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). T he T hi rd C i rc ui thel d, un der C he v ron ’s firs t step , th at § 1 2 5 5 ’s de t a i l e d e l i gi bi l i ty s t a nda r ds do noti ndi c a t e ac l e a rc ongr e s s i ona l i nt e ntt o pr e e m pt th e f ie ld f r o m f u r th e rr e g u la tio n . I

d. at11 6. U nd er C he v ron ’ s s e c ond s t e p, how e ve r , the T hi r d C i r c ui the l d 8 C . F . R . § 1245. 1( c ) ( 8) i s notba s e d on a p e r m is s ib le c o n s tr u c tio n o f th e s ta tu te b e c a u s e it is in c o n s is te n t w ith th e e lig ib ility s ta n d a r d s s e t fo r th in § 1 2 5 5 . I d. a t119- 20. W e j oi n i n h ol di ng 8 C . F . R . § 1 24 5. 1(c) (8) i s i nv al i d and fol l ow the T hi rd C i rc ui t ’ s a nal ys i s a s arti cul at ed i n the det ai l ed and com prehensi ve op i ni on w ri tt en by J udge B e c ke ron be ha l f of the pa ne l . A s t o the f

i r s ts t e p of

the C he v ron a na l y s i s , S c he e r e rur ge s us t o hol d § 1255’ s de t a i l e d e l i gi bi l i ty s t a nda r ds i ndi c a t e ac l e a rc ongr e s s i ona l i nt e ntt o pr e e m ptthe f i e l d f r om f ur the rr e gul a ti on. T he S upr e m e C our t , how e ve r , r e j e c t e d thi s l i ne of

r e a s oni ng i n L o

p e z v . D a v is , 531 U . S . 23 0, 24 3-44 , 12 1 S . C t . 71 4, 72 3-24 (200 1), and w e dec l i ne t o fol l ow i there . 1419

See al so M ou rni ng v. Fam i l y P ub l ’ns Serv. , Inc. , 4 1 1 U .S . 3 5 6 , 3 7 2 , 9 3 S . C t. 1 6 5 2 , 1 6 6 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ( e x p l a i n i n g s t a tu t o r y d i s c l o s u r e r e q u i r e me n t s fo rs o me tra nsac ti on s does notprec l ud e a gency f rom i m po si ng si m i l arre qu i re m ent s on o ther tr a ns a c ti ons ) . B e c a us e pr e c e de nte s t abl i s he s tha ts t a tut or y e l i gi bi l i ty s t a nda r ds al on e do n otre fl ec ta c l ear c on gres si on al i nt entt o p re em ptfurther a gency re gu l ati on , w e f

i nd , un der the fi rs tst ep of the C he v ron an al ysi s, § 1 2 5 5 i s atb est a m bi guous a s t o w he the rthe A tt or ne y G e ne r a l m a y r e gul a t e e l i gi bi l i ty t o a ppl y for ad j u stm en to f st atu s. T urni ng t o the se cond st ep of the C he v ron a na l y s i s , w e m us tde t e r m i ne w he the r8 C . F . R . § 1245. 1( c ) ( 8) i s “ ba s e d on ape r m i s s i bl e c ons tr uc ti on of the st atut e. ” C he v ron , 467 U . S . a t843, 104 S . C t . a t2782. W e be gi n w i th the go verni ng st atut e, § 1 25 5, w hi ch grant s e l i gi bi l i ty t o adj ustst atus t o any al i en

“ w ho w a s i ns pe c t e d a nd a dm i tt e d orparol e d i n t o th e U n i t e d St a t e s . ” 8 U . S. C. § 1 25 5(a) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). P ar ol ed al i ens, deem ed “ arri vi ng al i ens” un der 8 C . F . R . § 1 . 1(q), ar e notadm i tt ed t o the U ni t ed S t at es ; ra ther, they are tre at ed as “a p p lic a n ts fo ra d m is s io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( d ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ; see a lso §§ 11 01 (a )( 13 )( B ), 1 2 2 5 ( a ) ( 1 ) . A p p lic a n ts fo ra d m is s io n , in tu r n , “s h a ll b e d e ta in e d fo ra[ r e m o v a l] pr oc e e di ng” i f

a n i m m i gr a ti on of

f i c e rde t e r m i ne s the y a r e “ notc l e a r l y a nd be y ond a dou btent i t l ed t o b e a dm i tt ed. ” I d. § 1 22 5(b)(2)(A ). T he st atut e thu s def i nes p a r o le e s a s a rr iv in g a lie n s — i.e ., a p p lic a n ts fo ra d m is s io n , w h o a r e p la c e d inIndeed, in Succar “it was represented in the brief s before [the First Circuit] that the 15 ‘majority of the intende d benef

iciarie s of parolee adjustment of status are in removal proce eding s.’ The Attorney General [did] not dispute this s tatement.” Succar, 394 F.3d at 21. As the Third Circuit observed, however, “ [m ]ore compellingthan any statistic . . . is the statutory structurethat indicates that pa rolee s will, bydefault, be in removal proc eeding s.” Zheng , 422 F.3d at 117. 20 re m ov al proceedi ng s unl es s they are “ c le a r ly a n db e y o n da d o u b t e nti t l e d t o be adm i tt ed. ” I

d. ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . G i ve n the de m a ndi ng s t a nda r d fora dm i s s i on, parol ed al i ens are arri vi ng al i ens, near l y a l l of w ho m ar e pl ac ed i n rem ov al proceedi ng s. Iti s c l ear f rom the st atut ory t ext , there fore , thatC on gres s i nt ended 15 fo rv ir tu a lly a ll p a r o le e s to b e in r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . Se e Zhe ng , 422 F . 3d a t117. S ec ti on 12 55 , ho w ever , i nd i ca t es thatdespi t e bei ng pl ac ed i n rem ov al pr oc e e di ngs , pa r ol e e s a r e , a s age ne r a l c l a s s , e l i gi bl e t o a ppl y fora n a dj us tm e ntof s t a tus . T he s t a tut e e xpl i c i t l y s t a t e s “ [ t ] he s t a tus of a n a l i e n w ho w a s i ns pe c t e d a nd a dm i tt e d orparol e d i nt o the U ni t ed S t at es . . . m ay be adj ust ed by the A tt orney G e n e r a l . . . i f

( 1 ) th e a l i e n ma k e s a n a p p l i c a ti o n fo rs u c h a n a d j u s tme n t . ” 8 U . S. C. § 1 25 5(a) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). B y i t s l angu age, then, § 1 25 5 p l ai nl y c on t em pl at es thatparol ed al i ens m ay appl y for adj ustm entof st atus, tho ug h the A tt orney G ener al n e e d n o t g r a n t it. T h e v a s t m a jo r ity o f a lie n s p a r o le d in to th e U n ite d S ta te s w ill, how e ve r , be i n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs by vi r tue of the s t a tut or y s c he m e . W e thus c o n c lu d e th a t b y a llo w in g p a r o le e s , a s ac la s s , to a p p ly fo ra d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s in § 1 2 5 5 , C o n g r e s s d id n o t in te n d th e m e r e fa c t o f r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s w o u ld21

r e n d e ra n a lie n in e lig ib le to a p p ly fo ra d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . Se e Zhe ng , 42 2 F . 3d at 1 1 8 ; s e e al s o Suc c ar , 394 F . 3d a t25 ( “ C ongr e s s c hos e nott o di s qua l i f y f r om e l i gi bi l i ty a l l of

thos e a l i e ns ‘ i ns pe c t e d a nd a dm i tt e d orpa r ol e d’ i n r e m ova l or o th e rju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” ) . I n s u m , th e g o v e r n in g s ta tu te p la c e s p a r o le e s in r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs buta l s o r e nde r s the m e l i gi bl e , a s age ne r a l r ul e , t o a ppl y for a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . T ur ni ng t o the r e gul a ti on, 8 C . F . R . § 1245. 1( c ) ( 8) e xc l ude s “ [ a ] ny a rr i vi ng al i en i n rem o v al p ro ceed i n g s” fro m ap p l yi n g fo r ad j u stm en to f st atu s. T h u s, w h e r e a s th e s ta tu te , § 1 2 5 5 , c o n te m p la te s th a t p a r o le e s — a rr iv in g a lie n s , v ir tu a lly al l of w ho m ar e pl ac ed i n rem ov al proceedi ng s— shou l d b e e l i gi bl e t o app l y for an a d j u s tme n to f

s t a tu s , th e r e g u l a ti o n , 8 C. F. R. § 1 2 4 5 . 1 ( c ) ( 8 ) , e x c l u d e s th e s a me c la s s f r o m e lig ib ility . Se e Zhe ng , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 - 2 0 . G iv e n th is in tr a c tab le c o n f lic t b e tw e e n th e s ta tu te a n d th e r e g u la tio n , w e h o ld 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .1 ( c ) ( 8 ) is notba s e d on ape r m i s s i bl e c ons tr uc ti on of 8 U . S . C . § 1255, a nd i nva l i da t e the r e g u la tio n a c c o r d in g ly . W e a g r e e w ith th e T h ir d C ir c u it th a t, “[ w ]h ile th e s ta tu te m a y b e a m b ig u o u s e n o u g h to a llo w fo rs o m e r e g u la to r y e lig ib ility s ta n d a r d s , it d o e s n o ts o t o t a l l y ab d i c a t e a u th o r i ty t o th e Att o r n e y Ge n e r a l a s t o a l l o w a r e g u la tio n , lik e [ 8 C .F .R .] § 1 2 4 5 .1 ( c ) ( 8 ) , th a t e s s e n tia lly r e v e r s e s th e e lig ib ility structure s etou tby C on gres s. ” Zhe ng , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 .22

In sum w e c anno tsa y, i n l i gh tof L op ez , § 1 2 5 5 ’s d e ta ile d e lig ib ility s t a nda r ds e vi nc e ac l e a rc ongr e s s i ona l i nt e ntt o pr e e m ptthe A tt or ne y G e ne r a l f r om further r egul ati ng i n the ar ea . U nd erthe fi rs tst ep of the C he v ron a na l y s i s , § 1255 is , th e r e fo r e , a t b e s t a m b ig u o u s a s to w h e th e rth e A tto r n e y G e n e r a l m a y r e g u la te e l i gi bi l i ty t o a ppl y fora dj us tm e ntof s t a tus . T ur ni ng t o the s e c ond s t e p of the C he v ron anal ys i s, i ti s app ar entfr om the st atut ory s chem e thatC on gres s i nt ended t o a l l ow m os tpa r ol e d a l i e ns t o a ppl y fora n a dj us tm e ntof s t a tus ; the r e gul a ti on, how e ve r , ba r s a l m os ta l l s uc h a l i e ns f r om e l i gi bi l i ty . T hus , the r e gul a ti on i s not b a s e d o n ap e r m is s ib le c o n s tr u c tio n o f th e g o v e r n in g s ta tu te . B ec au se w e h o ld 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .1 (c )( 8 ) is in v alid , w e r ev er se th e B IA ’s M a r c h 3 , 2 0 0 5 , d e c is io n r e ly in g o n th e r e g u la tio n to d e n y S c h e e r e r ’s m o tio n to r e ope n hi s pr oc e e di ngs , a nd r e m a nd the c a s e t o the B I A forpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e nt w ith th is o p in io n . I I I . C ON C L US I ON F orthe for e goi ng r e a s ons , w e a f f i r m the de ni a l of

S c he e r e r ’ s a s y l um ap p l i cat i o n , v acat e th e d et erm i n at i o n th ath i s asyl u m ap p l i cat i o n w as fri v o l o u s, r e ve r s e the B I A ’ s de ni a l of hi s m oti on t o r e ope n hi s pr oc e e di ngs , a nd r e m a nd the c a s e forf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. PE TI TI ON S DENI ED I N PART, AN D G RANTED I N PART.