## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 1890 M AR I A E. G ONZALEZ -B AL DE RAS, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition toReview an O rde r o f the Bo ard o f Immigration App eals

. No . A077 490 772
S UB MI TT ED F EB RU AR Y 10, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 5, 2010

B efore P OSNER, T INDER, an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . P OS NE R, Cir cu i tJudg e . The pet i ti oner, a M exi can ci ti zen, ente re d the Un i ted S tat es i l l ega l l y b y the use ofso m eone el se’ s docum entat i on a nd was prom pt ly r e mov e d. 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 2 5 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i )

. He r r e mov a l ma de her i nel i gibl e t o see k r eadm i ssi on t o the Unite d Sta tes forfi ve yea rs unl ess she obt ai ned perm i ssi on t o re a p p ly for p erm issi on ea rli er. §§ 1182(a)(9)( A )( i) , ( ii i)

.2 N o. 09

- 1890 Ratherthan ei therwaito r askf orper m i ssion to re apply, she snuck back i nto the U ni ted St ate s a m on th l ate r. Thi s m eant that she was f orbi dd en to r eapplyf or p erm is s ion to ente r f or ten years
. § 1182(a)(9) (C)(i )( I I )( ii ). St i l l, her e s he was, undetecte d, and the f ol l owing yea r her husband, a l aw ful p er m anent r esi dent ofthe U ni ted S tates (si nc e th enhe ha s be co m e a ci ti ze n) , who m s he had m ar ri ed shor tl y a fterherse con d il l ega l entr y, fi l ed a vi sa p e t i t i o n o n he r b e ha l f

. T he p e t i t i o n wa s g r a nt e d, and l ate r she fi l ed an appli cati on t o adj ust herst atus, o n the b as i s o fhe r husba nd’ s st atus , t o tha t o fa l awful p erm an en t residen t. § 1255 (i )( 1). U p on d iscovering th at sh e had reente red th e cou nt ry i l l ega l l y a fterbeing r em ove d, the Depart m ent o fH om el a n d S e c ur i t y , th o u g h i tc o u l d h a v e r e mo v e d h e r s u mm ar ily, § 12 31( a) ( 5) , i nstea d m er el y deni ed her appli cat i o n f o r a dj us t men t o f s t a t u s a n d s c he du l e d a new r em ova l hear i ng. A t that he ar ing which s he as ked t he i mm i g r a t i o n j ud g e t o p e r mi th e r t o r e a pp l y f o r a dm i ssi on r etr oac ti ve to the d at e ofherr eentr y. H er author i ty w as 8 C

. F. R. § 212. 2( i ) ( 2) , wh i ch st ate s that a n ad j us tm en t of statu s can be orde red ret roactively. W ere th atp r o v i s i o n a p p l i c a b l e t o h e r n o t wi th s t a n d i n gthe st atut e, s he c o ul d a ppl y f o r a dj us tment of stat us wi th o ut wai tingt eny ea r s f r o m her se co nd r emov al

. Butthe i m m i gr ati on j ud ge, se conded by the B oar d ofI m m i gr ati on A p p eals, ruled on th e au th ority of In reTo rres -Ga rc ia , 23 I
. & N
. Dec. 86 6 ( BIA 2006) , thatan a pp l i cati on fo r re tr oac ti ve re lief ( w hi ch the Board ca l l s “ nunc pro tunc”

— “now f o r the n”

— reli ef, a term that prop erly refers, rather, to corre c tin g a m ist ak e, C entra l La bo rers’ P ensio n, We l f a re &N o. 09

- 1890 3 Annui ty F und s v. Gr i

ffee , 1 98 F.3d 64 2, 644 (7th Cir. 1999); K ing v. Ionization Int’ l, Inc. , 825 F.2d 118 0 , 1 1 8 8 (7th C ir. 1987 )) can not be gra n ted w he n th e effect w ou ld be to li ft th e ten -year bar. Retr oac ti ve re l i ef i s a too l l ong em plo yed by the i m m i gr ati on author i ti es, base d o n w hat they b el i eve to be i m pli ed st at u to ry au th or ity to p ro vid e re lief fro m th e ha rs h p ro visi ons ofthe i m m i gr ati on l aw s i n sym path et i c ca ses . S ee, e.g ., P a tel v. G o nz a les , 432 F.3d 6 8 5 , 693 (6th C ir. 2005); E d w a r d s v . INS , 393 F. 3d 299, 308-09 ( 2d C ir. 2 0 04). T h is c as e c on c eiv ab ly is on e. T h e p et itio n er is 51 ye ar s o ld an d has th ree ch il d ren, one a U
. S. citi z e n a nd the oth ers l aw ful perm an en t r esi dents, and apartfro m heri l l ega l entr i es sh e has bee n l aw - abi ding. But the Board r ule d th a tthe r e g ul a t i o n c a nn o tc o nt r a v e ne the s t a t ut e tha t bar s a r em ove d al i en fro m r eapply i ng f oradm i ssi on f or ten y ear s. The sta tute i s cl ear and the Board’ s r uling co rr ect

— an d an y way th e Bo ar d ac te d wi th i n i ts a utho r i tyi n i nt er pr et i ng i t s o wn r e g u l a t i o n n o tt o p e r mi tth e s t a t u t e t o b e c i r c u mvente d. T h e ci rcui ts i n w hi ch the Board’ s r uling has b ee n ch alle n ge d h av e u p h eld it. D e lgado v. M uk a sey, 51 6 F.3 d 65 , 73 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ); G o n z a l e s v . DHS , 50 8 F
. 3d 1227, 12 41

- 42 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 7)

. W e no w j oin the m , e l ev at i ng d i ct a i n Lem us-L o sa v . Ho lder, 57 6 F
. 3d 752, 76 0 ( 7th Cir

. 20 09) , to a hol ding. A notheras pect o fthi s ca se re quir es com m en t. Because the pet i ti onerwas bar re d fr om recei vi ng a w ai vero f in ad m i ssibi l i ty, she coul d not a pp l y f oran a dj ustm ent o f sta tus. 8 U
. S. C. § 1255( i ) ( 2) ( A )

. But ra therthan say that, th e i m m i g r at i o n j udg e “pr et er m i tt ed” the a ppl i ca ti o n.4 N o. 09

- 1890 Thi s wor d i s us ed bythe i m m igrati on co ur t an d the Bo ar d o fI m m i g r at i o n Appea l s whene ve r a n a l i eni s f o und in elig ible to ap p ly for so m e fo rm of re lief. E .g., Si ngh v. G o nz a les , 468 F.3d 135 , 136 n. 1 ( 2 d Cir. 2006); Aff ul v. A sh cr oft, 3 8 0 F
. 3 d 1 , 6 ( 1 s tCi r . 2 0 0 4 )

. T he c o mm o n di c ti onar y mea ni ng s o f “ pr e t e r mi t ” a r e t o l e a v e un do ne , to negl ect, to o m i t, to o ver l oo k i n tenti onal l y, to l et pass w i thout m enti on o r noti ce, to int er rup t o r ter m i nate, to su sp en d ind efin ite ly. Sin gh v. G o nz a les , sup ra , 46 8 F
. 3d at 136 n
. 1. I t m ight seem th a t b e cau se th e pe titi one r’s appl i ca ti o n f o r adj us tment o f st atus i s pr ematur e and w i l l re m ai n so unti l the ten yea rs ar e up , i t is th e la st m eani ng o fpre ter m it

— to su sp en d ind efin ite ly

— th at is th e o ne the Boa r d i nt en ds. I t i s th e se ns e i n whi chthe w or d i s use d i n the onl y r egul ati on of the Boar d that w e’ve foun d that uses i t. 8 C

. F.R. § 240.21(c)(1)

. That w oul d m ean that the p et itio ner’ s a pp l i cati on f or adj us tmento fs ta tu s woul d b e puti n the f re ez erunt i l s he becam e e l i gibl e t o apply i n te n y ea rs. But that i s no t cor re ct. To o btai n l ega l r esi dence i n the U ni ted St at es , s h e m u st, w h en sh e b ec om es eligib le t o a p p ly f o r p e r miss i o n t o r e a pp l y f o r a dmi s s i o n, 8 U. S

. C. § 1 18 2(a )(9) (C )( i i ) , apply for t h at p er m iss ion . I f p er m iss ion to en te r is gr an te d , s h e c an th en rea p p ly f o r a dj us tmento fs ta tu s

—but notbef or e. To s ay that her appli cati on f oradj ustm ent o fst at u s has bee n “pre term i tte d” i s there f or e unneces sar i l y v ague; her a pp l i c a t i o n ha s b e e n di s mi s s e d. A fur th er oddi tyi s th athe r a ppl i ca ti o n f o r a dj us tment o fs ta tu s was de ni ed bythe D epa r tmento fHomel an dN o. 09

- 1890 5 S ec ur i tywhens he was discov er ed to ha ve e nt er ed th e countr y i l l ega l l y f ora seco nd ti m e. Deni ed

—bu t la ter pr et er m i tt ed. The reas o n tha t bo ththe De par tmenta nd the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge rej ecte d an appli cati on byher to adj ust herst atus is that an al i en wh ose appli cati o n f o r a dj us tmento fs ta tu s ha s be ende ni ed bythe D e p a r t me n tma y r e n e w th e a p p l i c a t i o n b e f o r e th e i mm i gr ati on j ud ge w hen the al i en i s pl aced in rem ova l pro ceedi ngs. 8 C.F

. R. § 245. 2( a) ( 5) ( i i). T hat i s what happened here

. Bu t why t he i de nt i c a l a pp l i c a t i o n wa s s a i d t o be “de ni ed” b y the De par tmentb ut“ pr et er m i tt ed” b y the i m m i g r at i o n j udge r emai ns a mys te r y , tho ug h n o t o ne th at can help the p etitioner. She prese nts o thergr ounds f orr elief, but they have i nsuffi ci ent m er i t to w ar ra nt disc ussi on. The p eti ti on for rev iew is D ENI ED .

3- 5- 10