Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 403 (BIA 2014) Interim Decision #3813

403

Matter of Ka A. PAEK, Respondent

Decided September 17, 2014

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

An alien who was admitted to the United States at a port of entry as a conditional 

permanent resident pursuant to section 216(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a) (2012), is an alien “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” who 

is barred from establishing eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h)

of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (2012), if he or she was subsequently convicted of an 

aggravated felony.

FOR RESPONDENT: Daniel B. Conklin, Esquire, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Benjamin 

Ross Winograd, Esquire, Alexandria, Virginia1

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Richard S. O’Brian, 

Assistant Chief Counsel

BEFORE: Board Panel: ADKINS-BLANCH, Vice Chairman; GUENDELSBERGER, 

Board Member; MANUEL, Temporary Board Member.

GUENDELSBERGER, Board Member:

In a decision dated January 8, 2014, an Immigration Judge found the 

respondent removable under sections 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii)

(2012), as an alien convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude not 

arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct and an aggravated 

felony. The Immigration Judge also found that because the respondent was 

convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission at a port of entry as 

a conditional permanent resident, he was ineligible for a waiver of 

inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (2012), 

and was therefore also ineligible for adjustment of status pursuant to

section 245(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2012). The respondent has 

appealed from that decision, contesting only the denial of his request for 

relief from removal. The appeal will be dismissed.

The respondent is a native and citizen of South Korea who was admitted 

to the United States in 1991 at a port of entry as a conditional permanent 

 

1 We acknowledge and appreciate the pro bono representation of counsel and 

co-counsel before the Immigration Court and the Board in this case.
Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 403 (BIA 2014) Interim Decision #3813

404

resident pursuant to section 216(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a) (1988).

2

 

He was subsequently convicted of receiving stolen property, a theft offense, 

and robbery in 2005 and 2006, and removal proceedings were initiated in 

July 2013. At his hearing before the Immigration Judge, the respondent 

applied for adjustment of status on the basis of his marriage to a 

United States citizen. Because of his convictions, he also sought a waiver 

of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Act. The Immigration Judge

determined that the respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony after 

his admission as a conditional permanent resident and was therefore barred 

from establishing eligibility for a section 212(h) waiver. We agree.

Section 212(h) of the Act includes the following proviso, which is

known as the aggravated felony bar:

No waiver shall be granted under this subsection in the case of an alien who has 

previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence if . . . since the date of such admission the alien has been 

convicted of an aggravated felony . . . . 

(Emphasis added.)

3

The only issue on appeal is whether the aggravated 

felony bar applies to an alien who was admitted at a port of entry as 

a conditional permanent resident under section 216(a) of the Act. More 

precisely, the question is whether the respondent is an alien who has 

previously been “admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully 

admitted for permanent residence” based on his admission to the 

United States at a port of entry as a conditional permanent resident.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in whose 

jurisdiction this case arises, has held that the phrase “admitted to the 

 

2

Section 216 was added to the Act by the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 

1986, Pub. L. No. 99-639, 100 Stat. 3537, as part of a comprehensive scheme to deter 

immigration-related marriage fraud. Under that section, a spouse, son, or daughter who 

obtains lawful permanent resident status on the basis of a marriage not yet of 24 months’

duration is considered to have obtained that status on a conditional basis. Sections 

216(a)(1), (h) of the Act. A petition to remove the conditional basis of that status must be 

filed during the 90-day period preceding the second anniversary of the grant of 

conditional permanent resident status. Sections 216(c)(1), (d)(2) of the Act. Upon 

approval of the joint petition, the Department of Homeland Security removes the 

conditional basis of the alien’s permanent resident status. Section 216(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act; 8 C.F.R. § 216.4(d)(1) (2014).

3 The aggravated felony bar was added to section 212(h) by section 348(a) of the Illegal 

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of Pub. L. 

No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-639, in part to resolve questions regarding the 

equal treatment of aliens based on whether or not they had departed from the 

United States. See Matter of Yeung, 21 I&N Dec. 610, 611–12, 613 (BIA 1996, 1997)

(en banc).
Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 403 (BIA 2014) Interim Decision #3813

405

United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” in the 

aggravated felony bar of section 212(h) does not apply to an alien who 

entered without inspection and then adjusted to lawful permanent resident 

status.4 Hanif v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 694 F.3d 479 (3d Cir. 2012). As the

court in Hanif explained:

Congress clearly only placed limitations on waivers available to aliens who were

previously admitted as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. This 

phrase requires not only a prior admission to the United States, but also that the 

prior admission has been made while the alien was in the status of a lawful 

permanent resident. We perceive no other meaning from the language of the 

statute.

Id. at 484.5

There is no dispute that the respondent was “admitted” to the 

United States at a port of entry in 1991, so we need only determine

whether the phrase “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” in section 

212(h) of the Act includes his admission as a conditional permanent 

resident under section 216(a).

6

 

4

Several other circuit courts have concluded that the aggravated felony bar in section 

212(h) is inapplicable to aliens who entered the United States without inspection or were 

admitted at a port of entry in a status other than that of a lawful permanent resident. 

See Negrete-Ramirez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1047, 1050−54 (9th Cir. 2014); Papazoglou 

v. Holder, 725 F.3d 790, 793−94 (7th Cir. 2013); Bracamontes v. Holder, 675 F.3d 380, 

385−89 (4th Cir. 2012); Lanier v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 631 F.3d 1363, 1365−67 (11th Cir. 

2011); Martinez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 532, 546 (5th Cir. 2008). However, in Roberts 

v. Holder, 745 F.3d 928, 932−34 (8th Cir. 2014), the Eighth Circuit rejected the approach 

taken by those circuits and instead endorsed our interpretation in Matter of E.W. 

Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 784, 789 (BIA 2012), which held that the section 212(h) waiver 

is unavailable “for any alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony after 

acquiring lawful permanent resident status, without regard to the manner in which such 

status was acquired.”

5 Under Hanif, an alien who entered the United States without inspection, or one who 

was initially admitted to the United States in nonimmigrant status and subsequently 

adjusted to conditional permanent resident status, would not be subject to the aggravated 

felony bar in section 212(h) of the Act because the initial admission would not have been 

at a port of entry as a lawful permanent resident. 

6 The record contains conflicting evidence regarding whether the conditions on the 

respondent’s lawful permanent resident status were eventually removed under the 

procedure provided in section 216(c) of the Act or whether he adjusted status based on 

a subsequently filed visa petition. In either event, the result in this case would not be 

affected, because the Immigration Judge’s finding that the respondent was initially 

admitted as a conditional permanent resident under section 216(a) of the Act is not 

disputed. 
Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 403 (BIA 2014) Interim Decision #3813

406

The plain language of section 216 of the Act establishes that an alien 

admitted as a conditional permanent resident is “lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence” as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(20) (2012), and incorporated into section 212(h) of the Act. 

Section 101(a)(20) defines the phrase “lawfully admitted for permanent 

residence” to mean

the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in 

the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such 

status not having changed.

Section 216(a)(1) of the Act, which provides as follows, clearly includes 

aliens who are admitted on a conditional basis within the category of aliens 

who are “lawfully admitted for permanent residence”:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien spouse (as defined in 

subsection (h)(1)) and an alien son or daughter (as defined in subsection (h)(2)) 

shall be considered, at the time of obtaining the status of an alien lawfully admitted 

for permanent residence, to have obtained such status on a conditional basis 

subject to the provisions of this section.

(Emphasis added.) 

The language in other provisions of section 216 also makes clear that 

permanent resident status is obtained on the date of an alien’s initial 

admission as a conditional permanent resident. For example, section 

216(a)(2)(A) provides notice requirements regarding the removal of the 

conditions that are imposed on an alien spouse, son, or daughter at the time 

he or she “obtains permanent resident status on a conditional basis under 

paragraph (1).” Similarly, section 216(c)(3)(B), which governs the removal 

of conditions of admission after approval of a joint petition, states that the 

conditional basis of the alien’s status is removed “effective as of the second 

anniversary of the alien’s obtaining the status of lawful admission for 

permanent residence.” (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, the terms “alien spouse” and “alien son or daughter,” which 

are defined in sections 216(h)(1) and (2) of the Act, include “an alien who 

obtains the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 

(whether on a conditional basis or otherwise).” (Emphasis added.) Section 

216(e), which addresses eligibility for naturalization, also specifies that an 

alien admitted as a conditional permanent resident “shall be considered to 

have been admitted as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence

and to be in the United States as an alien lawfully admitted to the 

United States for permanent residence.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, although 

an alien may be admitted pursuant to section 216 on a conditional basis, 
Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 403 (BIA 2014) Interim Decision #3813

407

under the plain language of that section, such an admission is nonetheless 

an admission “as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” 

Were there any doubt concerning the meaning of the statute, the 

regulations implementing section 216 of the Act define a “conditional 

permanent resident” as 

an alien who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence within the 

meaning of section 101(a)(20) of the Act, except that a conditional permanent 

resident is also subject to the conditions and responsibilities set forth in section 216 

or 216A of the Act, whichever is applicable, and part 216 of this chapter.

8 C.F.R. §§ 216.1, 1216.1 (2014) (emphasis added). The regulations also 

specify that conditional permanent residents are afforded “the privilege of 

residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance 

with the immigration laws, such status not having changed.” 8 C.F.R. 

§§ 216.1, 1216.1.

Finally, in the context of eligibility for a section 212(c) waiver, the 

Third Circuit held that a “conditional permanent resident” obtains “lawful 

permanent resident” status at the time of his or her initial admission. 

Gallimore v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 619 F.3d 216, 229 (3d Cir. 2010). After 

considering the language of section 216 and the corresponding regulation at 

8 C.F.R. § 216.1, the court concluded that the Act “thus equates conditional 

[lawful permanent residents] with ‘full-fledged’ [lawful permanent 

residents], except to the extent—but only to the extent—that [section 216]

prescribes additional obligations.” Id. 

Because the respondent was admitted to the United States in 1991 at 

a port of entry as a “conditional permanent resident,” he was admitted as an 

alien “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” within the meaning of 

sections 101(a)(20) and 212(h) of the Act. The Immigration Judge properly

determined that the respondent is subject to the aggravated felony bar and is 

therefore statutorily ineligible for a section 212(h) waiver. Accordingly, 

the respondent’s appeal will be dismissed.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.