1

09- 0216- ag V i l l af ana v. H ol der UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Rulings by s umm ary order do not have pr ecedential effect. Citat ion to sum mary or ders f i l e d a f t e r Ja n u a r

y 1, 2 0 0 7 , i s p e r m i t t e d a n d i s g o v e r n e d b y t h i s c o u r t ’ s Lo c a l Ru le 32.1 and F ed er al Ru le of App ella te P r oc ed ur e 32 .1. In abrie f o r ot he r pape r inwh ic h li tig an t c it es a su m m ar y o r de r , i n e ach pa r ag r ap h i n whi cha ci ta ti onap pe ar s, a t l eas t o ne ci ta ti onm us t e it he r be to th e Federal Append ix or be accompanied by t he notat ion: “(sum mary o rder).” A party citin g a s um ma ry order must serve a copy of t hat summ ary ord er tog ether wit h the pap er in which the summary order is cited on any party not repr esented by counsel unless the summ ary or de r is a vaila bl e i n a n el ect r on ic da ta ba se wh ic h is pu bl ic ly acc essi bl e wi th ou t pa ym en t o f f

ee (such as the datab ase available at h t tp : / / w w w . c a 2 . u s c o u r t s . g o v/ ). If no copy is served by r eas onof th e av ai la bi li ty

of th e o r de r

onsu cha d at ab ase , t he ci ta ti onm ust i nc lu de r ef er en ce to th at database and th e docket num ber of t he case in which the or der was entered. At a stated term of the Un ited Stat es Court of Appeals for t he Second Circuit , held at th e Daniel Pat rick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St reet, in t he City of New York, onth e 21 da

y o f D ece m be r , t

wo th ou san d n in e. st PR E SE NT: G UI DO C AL AB RE SI ,

J OS É A. C AB R ANES , B A R R I NGT ON D. P AR KER ,

Circuit Jud ges ,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x J UA N V I L L A F A NA ,

Petitioner , v. 09- 021 6- ag E RI C H. H OLDER , J R ., U ni te d S tat es At to r ney Gen er al, Res po nde nt .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x F OR P ETIT ION ER: J uanVillaf ana, pro se , N ew Yo r k, N Y. FOR RESPO NDENTS: M . J oce lynLo pez Wr igh t, Senio r

Li tigat io n Co un s el, (T on y Wes t, As s is tan t A tt or ney Gen er al, Civil Di vis io n, U.S . D epar tm ent

of J us ti ce; L es lie M cKay ,2 Assis tant Director, Off

ice of Immigration Litigation, on the brief ), Was hi ngt on , D .C. Petition for

review of a de cision by the Board of Im migration Appea ls (“B IA”). UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION of this pet it io n f or r evi ew o f adec is io n o f the B I A, it is he r eb y O RD ERE D, ADJU DG ED , AN D D ECREED , t ha t th e p etitio n fo r re vi ewis DENIED. Pe ti ti on er J uanVillaf

ana ( “pe ti ti on er ” or

“Vi lla fa na” ), a nat

ive andcit izenof th e Do mi ni can Republ ic, seeks reviewof the December 17, 20 08 order of the B IA denying hi s application for a waiv er of in adm is s abilit

y un der fo r mer 8 U. S.C. § 11 82( c) (1 994

) ( r epe aled199 6)

. In

re Juan Vi lla fana , N o. A04 1- 587 -5 10 (

B .I .A. Dec . 17 , 20 08) , aff

’g A041-587-510 (Immig. Ct. N.Y . City A pr. 30, 2007). W e assume the parties’ familiarity with the unde rlying facts and procedural history of the cas e. Whenth e B I A is s ues an i nd epe nd ent dec is io n an d d oes no t ad op t the I mm igr ati onJ ud ge’ s dec is io n, we r evi ew the d ecis io n o f the B I A alo ne. See Belortaja v. Gonzal es, 484F. 3d 619 , 62 2- 23 (

2d Cir. 2007). W e reviewthe age ncy’s factual findings under the s ubstantial evide nce standard, treating them as “conclusive unl ess any reasonable a djudica tor would be compelle d to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Coro vic v. M ukasey , 51 9 F .3d90, 95 (

2d Cir . 20 08)

. Questions of law a nd the applic ation of law to undisputed fact a re reviewe d de novo

. See Bah v. Mukasey , 52 9 F .3d99, 110 (2 d Ci r . 20 08)

. Villa fana a rgues that the BI A erred, as a matter of law, in concludi ng that he wa s ineligible for a § 212(c) wa iver beca use he was not “law fully admitted for permanent residence.” Our holding in De La Rosa v. U.S. Dep’t of Homelan d Sec. , howeve r, precludes such an argument. 489 F.3d 551 (2d C ir. 2007). In De La R osa , we he ld that “an a lien whose status has been adjusted to lawful pe rmanent r es id ent [“ LP R”] bu t who is s ub s equ ent ly d et er mi nedinan i mm igr ati onpr oce edi ng t o h ave or igi nally b eenin eli gib le f

or th at s tatus has no t b een‘la wf ully ad mi tt ed f

or per man ent

r es id enc e’ bec aus e t he al

ienis dee med , ab ini

ti o , n ever to hav e ob tai nedlawf

ul per man ent

r es id ent s tatus .” De La Rosa , 489 F.3d at 554 (quotation ma rks om itted). Thus , we c oncluded tha t, even for those who obtained their LPR status by mis take rather than fraud, if petitioner fails to demonstr ate that he or s he h ad co mp lie d wi thth e r elev ant s ub s tan ti ve l egal r equ ir eme nt s at the t

im e pe ti ti on er

was admitted for permanent residence, then petitione r was never “law fully admitted for permanent r es id enc e” an d, th er ef

or e, i s no t e nt

it ledto § 21 2( c) r eli ef

. See De La R osa , 48 9 F .3dat 5 55. De La R osa

is con tr ollin g he r e. At

th e t im e Villaf ana w as adm it te d f

or perman ent

r es id enc e, he w as no t l awf

ully el igi bl e f or LP R s tatus bec aus e of

hi s con vic ti onfo r

a con tr olleds ub s tan ce of fe ns e. See 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a

)(2)(A)(i) (II

) (providing that any al ien who vi olates or conspires or attempts to violate any l aw of regula tion of a State, the Unite d States, or a foreign county relating to3

a con tr olleds ub s tan ce is in adm is s ib le) . T hu s , h e f ail ed t o co mp ly wi thth e “r elev ant s ub s tan ti ve leg al r equ ir eme nt s ” f

or LP R s tatus , ev en tho ughth e co ns ul ar of fi cer mi s tak enly gr ant ed V

ill af ana an immigrant visa. Consequently , he wa s not “lawfully a dmitted for per manent residence” for pu r po s es of

dem on s tr ati ng e lig

ib ili ty fo r a § 21 2( c) waiv er . De La R osa , 48 9 F .3dat 5 55. Acc ordingly, the BIA properly determined that, as a matter of law, Villa fana wa s ineligible for a § 21 2( c) waiv er . B ecau s e Villaf

ana w as in eli gib le f

or a § 21 2( c) waiv er

r egar dl es s of

whe th er he p r ocu r ed his LP R s tatus by f

r aud , we, lik e t he B I A, n eedno t c on s id er whe th er th e I J pr op erly f

ou ndth at h e was a lso in a dm issi bl e f

or h avi ng fra ud ul en tl y p roc ure d LP R sta tus. Villaf ana al s o ar

gue s th at the ag enc y’s det er mi nat io n that he w as in eligib le f

or a § 21 2( c) waiv er violated his due process rights , and that the Gove rnment s hould be estopped from denying hi m the ab ili ty

to s eek s ucha waiv er . B ecau s e Villaf ana did no t r ais e thes e is s ues bef or e the B I A, th ey ar e un exh aus te d, andth us , we m ay no t c on s id er th em. See Fo ster v

. INS , 37 6 F .3d75, 78 (

2d Cir . 20 04) (h ol di ng that

a pet it io ner mu s t r ais e t o the B I A t ho s e s pec if ic i s s ues th at h e or

s he l ate r s eeks to r ais e inthis Cou r t) ; see also Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 480 F.3d 104, 11 9-20 (2d Cir. 2007) (although this rule is not jur isdictional, it is nonetheless mandatory). CONCLUSI ON We ha ve considered a ll of Villa fana’s remaining a rguments and determined them to be without merit.
For t he re a son s sta te d a bo ve , t he pe ti ti on for r evie w i s DE N IED . As we h ave c om pl et ed ou r re vi ew , a ny

sta y o f re mo va l t ha t th e C ou rt p re vi ou sly gra nte d i n th is p etitio n i s VACAT ED

. FO R T HE CO URT : Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk By:___________________________