P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 3379

_____________ E A R L W O O D R O W G A L L IM O R E , Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

_______________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 72- 749- 146 Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: M arg are t R

. R eich en b erg

________________ A r gued J une 10, 2010 B e f o re : A M B R O , C H A G A R E S , a n d G R E E N A W A Y , J R .,

C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: A ugus t20, 2010)

_________________
N i t a D obr os hi , E s q. ( A r gued) S p a r & B e rn ste in 225 B r oadw ay , St e. 512 N ew Y or k, N Y 10007 A t t or neyforPet i t i oner2 A l i za B. A l y es hm erni , E s q. Shar on M

. C l ay , E s q. ( A r gued) A l l en W

. H aus m an, E s q. T hom as W

. H us s ey , E s q. U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, C i vi l D i vi s i on P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 A t t or ney s forR es pondent

_______________ OP I NI ON

_______________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. E a r l Wo o d r o w Ga l l i mo r e p e t i t i o n s t h i s Co u r tt o r e v i e w a f in a l o rd e r o f re m o v a l is su e d b y th e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ”)

. A ft erfi ndi ng G al li m or e r emovabl e, an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) concl uded thathe i s i nel i gi bl e byl aw t o r ece i ve a d i s c r e t i o n a r ywa i v e ro f

r e mo v a l

. Ga l l i mo r e a p p e a l e d t o t h e BI A, chal l engi ng onl yt he IJ ’ s w ai ver det erm i nat i on. T he B I A aff i r m ed on al t ernat i ve gr ounds t hati t rai s ed s ua s pont e, and thi s pet i t i on fo ll ow ed. W e w i l l gr antt he pet i t i on and r emand t o t he B I A for furt her proceedings. I. Ga l l i mo r e i s a 4 8

- y e a r - o l d n a t i v e a n d c i t i z e n o f J a ma i c a . He e n ter e d th e U n it e d S tate s o n A u g u st 7 , 1 9 9 3 p u rsu a n t to a v a lid non- i m m i gr antvi s a. O n Sept ember25, 1993, w h il e dr i vi ng on a N ew Jerse yroa d w ayw ith a f em ale c o m p an ion , p o li ce o ff icers s t opped G al l i m or e and r ecovered fi ve pounds of m ar i j uana f r om t he vehi cl e. G al l i m or e w as det ai ned and ques t i oned, and al t hough he cl ai m s t hathe di d notknow he had be en form al l y arrest ed, he appea r s t o have s pentt hr ee orfourday s i n cus t ody

. J oi nt A ppendi x ( “J A ”) 406. O n D ece m ber3, 1993, a gr and j ur yr etur ned a s eal ed i ndi ctm entagai ns tG all imor e, char gi ng hi m w i t h, i nt er al i a, pos sess i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e fi ve pounds orm or e ofF or ease of refer ence, w e refer hereaft er t o ali ens w ho se 1 s t atus i s adj us t ed pur s uant to § 1186a as “condi t i onal L PR s ” or

“ c o n d itio n a l p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n ts .” 3 m ar i j uana, i n v iola t i on of N

. J

. St at
. A nn. §§ 2C : 35- 5a( 1) and 2 C :35 -5b (10 )(b). JA 4 0 8

. G all im o re cl aim s that h e w as n o t aw are of the i ndi ctm entatt he t i m e i tw as r etur ned. O n J anuary12, 1994, G al l i m or e ma r r i ed a U ni t ed St at es ci t izen

. O n A p r i l 14, 1994, he and hi s w i fe f i l ed a j oi ntpet i t i on and appl i cat i on foran adj ustmentof s t atus , s eeki ng t hathe be rec lassifi ed as a law fu l p erm an en t reside n t (“L P R ”). O n the F o rm I

- 485 t hatG al l i m or e compl et ed, he ans w er ed “no” t o t he fol l ow i ng ques t i on: “H ave y ou ever , i n oro u tsi d e the U

. S.

. . . [, ] been arr es t ed, ci t ed, char ged, i ndi ct ed, fi ned, or i m pr i s oned forbr eaki ng orvi ol at i ng anyl aw oror di nance . . . ?” JA 403. H e answ er ed sim ilarlyd u rin g a n in ter v iew in su p p o rt o f th e a p p lica tio n . O n Ju ly 6, 1994, t he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) appr o v e d the appl i cat i on and adj us t ed G al l i m or e’ s s t atus t o L PR on a condi t i onal bas i s . See 8 U

. S. C

. § 1186a. 1 O n N ovember13, 1994, G al l i m or e w as arr es t ed on the s t i l l

- pendi ng i ndi ctm ent
. H e cl ai m s t hat t hi s w as t he fi r s t t i m e he lea rned of

t he d rug cha rges agai nsthim

. T ho ug h h e ori ginally pl eade d notgui l t y , G al li m or e ul t i m at el yr ever s ed cour s e and ent er ed a gui l t ypl ea on M ar ch 1 0 , 1995. J A 406- 07. H e w as s ent ence d t o t i m e s erved – s i x day s , w hi ch i ncl uded the three or f o u r d a ys h e a p p e a rs to h a v e se rv e d a f ter b e in g d e tain e d in Sept ember1993. J A 406. O n A p ril 1 , 1 9 9 6 , G a lli m o re a n d h is w if e f iled a p e tit io n to h a v e t h e c o n d i t i o n s o n h i s L P R s t a tu s r e mo v e d

. J A 3 9 9

- 4 0 0

. On t he For m I

- 751 fi l ed i n s uppor t of the pet i t i on, he ans w er ed “no” to th e f o llo w in g q u e stio n : “S in c e b e c o m in g a c o n d iti o n a l re sid e n t, have y ou everbeen a r r es t ed, cit ed, char ged, i ndi ct ed, convi ct ed, fi n e d , o r i mpr i s o n e d f o r b r e a k i n g o r v i o l a t i n g a n y l a w or or di nance [?] ” JA 400. G al l i m or e cl ai m s t hat hi s w i fe c om pl et ed t he fo rm w i t ho ut know i ng abo ut hi s c o n vict i on . H e adm i t s, how ever , t hat he si gned t he form . T he I N S appr oved the pet i t i onG al l i m or e does not di s put e thathi s convi ct i on cons t i tut es 2 bot h an aggr avat ed fe l onyand a qual i fy i ng contr ol l ed s ubs t ance vi ol at i on. 4 o n A u g u s t 2 2 , 1 9 9 6 . J A 3 9 9

. Fi ve y ear s l at er , on D ece m ber17, 2001, G al l i m or e appl i ed fornatur al i zat i on. J A 395- 98. Fort he fi r s tt i m e, he di s cl os ed on t he ci t i zens hi p appl i cat i on hi s 1993 arr es t , hi s 1995 convi ct i on, and hi s s ent ence . J A 397. O n J ul y 11, 2005, beca us e of t he convi ct i on and hi s pr evi ous fai l ur e t o di s cl os e i t , G al l i m or e’ s appl i cat i on for c itiz e n s h ip w a s d e n ie d f o r p o o r m o ra l c h a ra c te r. O n A pr i l 3, 2006, U ni t ed St at es C it izen s hi p and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ces ( “C I S”) i s s ued G al l i m or e a N ot i ce t o A ppear (“ N T A ” ) (a n d late r su p p lem e n ted it), c h a rg in g h im a s re m o v a b le pur s uantt o t hr ee s t atutory p r ovi s i ons of the I m m i gr at i on and N a tio n a lityA c t (“ IN A ” ), c o d if ied a t 8 U .S .C

. § 1 1 0 1 , e t se q . F irst, th e N T A c h a rg e d G a llim o re a s re m o v a b le u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 122 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A) f

o r b e i n g , a t t h e t i me o f r e - e n t r y o r a d j u s t m ent of s t a tu s , wi t h i n a c l a s s o f i n a d mi s s i b l e a l i e n s . Sp e c i f i c a l l y , t h e NTA a lle g e d th a t G a llim o re w a s in a d m is s ib le u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( C ) ( i ) forh avi ng engage d i n fr aud orw i l l ful m isr epre s ent at i on of a mat er i al fac tt o obt ai n admi s s i on, d o c u me n t a t i o n , o ro t h e r b e n e f i t u n d e r t h e I NA

. Se c o n d , t h e NTA char ged G al l i m or e as r emovabl e under§ 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) for h a v i n g b een c o n v i c t e d o f a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y . Th i r d , t h e NTA char ged G all i m or e as r emovabl e under§ 1227( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) for havi ng been c onvi ct ed of a qual i fy i ng control l ed s ubs t ance vi ol at i on. J A 457. 2
R egar di ng t he fi r s t c har ge of r emovabi l i t y , t he amended N T A al l eged: Y o u p r o c u r e d y o u ra d mi s s i o n , v i s a , a d j u s t me n t , or ot herdocument at i on orbenef i tbyfrau d orby w i l l ful l ym i s r epr es ent i ng a m at er i al fac t , t o w i t : Y ou fai l ed t o admi t , on y our I

- 485 appl i cat i on that w as s ubm i t t ed on 4/ 14/ 94 and w hi l e bei ng ques t i onedT hi s dat e i s obvi ous l yi ncorr ect
. D ece m ber3, 1993 i s t he 3 d ate the ind ict m en t w as return ed

. T h e co rrect d ate o f G all im o re’s drug act i vi t i es i s Sept ember 25, 1993. J A 408. 5 u n d e r o a t h b y a Se r v i c e Off i c e r o n 6 / 3 0 / 9 4 , and on y o u r I-7 5 1 f

o rm th a t w a s e x e c u ted b yy o u o n A p ril 1, 1996

. . . , t o y ourpr i ordrug t r aff i cki ng act i vi t i es t hat occurr ed on D ece m ber3, 1993 as i s evi dence d [ 3] byan i ndi ctm entagai ns ty ou and y ouradmi s s i on of gui l tbefor e the N ew J er s eySuper i orC our tt o a char ge i n t hati ndi ctm ent
. T hos e mi s r epr es ent at i ons w er e made byy ou i n or der t o have t he Ser vi ce gr ant y ou perm anen tres i den tst atus. J A 414. G al l i m or e deni ed re m ovabi l i t y and t he factual al l egat i ons s uppor t i ng the ch ar ges . H e al s o appl i ed forcanc el l at i on of r emoval , w ai verof r emov al , and t erm i nat i on orcl os ur e of the pr ocee di ngs . T he I J hel d fi ve day s of r emoval pr ocee di ngs , dur i ng w hi ch G al l i m or e t es t i fi ed. A m ong ot hert hi ngs , he cl ai m ed thathe had bee n det ai ned foronl yone and one

- hal f or tw o h o u rs on Sept ember25, 1993, and t hat he di d notunder s t and att he t i m e that he had be en arr es t ed. J A 150- 51. I n an or al opi ni on, t he I J found thatt he G overnm enthad pr oved bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hatG al l i m ore w as r emovabl e on al l t hr ee c har ged gr ounds

. J A 83- 84. W i t h r es pect to the ch a rg e o f re m o v ab il it y b ase d o n G all im o re’s m isre p re se n tatio n s, th e IJ f o u n d th a t h e h a d w ill f u ll y fa iled to d isc l os e hi s 1993 arr es t on bot h t he For m I

- 485 and t he F o rm I

- 751, and dur i ng hi s J une 30, 1994 i nt ervi ew . J A 84. She found fur t hert hatG al l i m or e had w i l l ful l yfai l ed t o m ent i on t he convi ct i on on t he For m I

- 751 s ubm i t t ed t o r emove t he condi t i ons on hi s L PR s t atus . I d. T he I J r ej ect ed G al l i m or e’ s i nt i m at i on “that any on e othert han [him sel f ] b o re responsi bil i t yfor t hese om i s s i ons . ” J A 85. T he I J concl uded t hat G al l i m or e had made the m i sr epresent at i on s “so he co uld m ai ntai n h i s el i gibi l i t yfor t hese appl i cat i on[s ] beca us e cl ear l yi f he ha d r evea l ed th[e] convi ct i on h e w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n e lig ib le f o r th e b e n e f

its h e w a s s e e k in g .” I d. She “w as notper s uaded by[G al l i m o r e’ s ] s el f- s ervi ng6 tes tim o n yth a t h e w a s th e in n o c e n t d u p e in a ll o f th e se f ili n g s w ith f a ls e in f o rm a tio n [ .]” J A 8 8

. T ur ni ng t o G all i m or e’ s r eques t ed bas es forr el i ef f r om r emoval , t he I J deni ed t erm i nat i on and admi n i s tr a t i ve cl os ur e of the re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s. JA 8 6 -8 7 . S h e a lso p re te r m it te d h is a p p lic a tio n f

o r c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l, a s 8 U .S .C . § 12 29 b(b)( 1)( C ) cl earl y rendered him i neli gibl e for such rel i ef. JA 87- 88. F inal l y– and ce nt r al t o t hi s pet i t i on – t he I J hel d t hat G al l i m or e w as not el i gi bl e for a w ai verunderfor m erI N A § 212( c) “bec aus e he di d not obt ai n hi s per m anent r es i dence w it h out w i l l ful l y m i s r epr es ent i ng [a] m at er i al fac t
. ” J A 87. C i t i ng M at t er of T--

- , 6 I

. & N

. D ec. 1 3 6 (B IA 1954) , t he I J concl uded that G al l i m or e had ne verbeen “ ‘ l aw ful l y ’ admi t t ed as a l aw ful perm an entr es i dent ” – a ne ces s arypr er equi s i t e for§ 212( c) r el i ef

– beca us e he had obt ai ned hi s or i gi nal s t atus adj ustm en t thr ough w i l l ful m i s r epr es ent at i on. J A 87. T he I J t her ef o re deni ed the w ai verappl i cat i on and i s s ued an or derof r emoval

. J A 78- 79. G al l i m or e t i m el yappea l ed t o t he B I A , chal l engi ng onl yt he I J ’ s w ai veranal y s i s . T he B I A aff i r m ed t he I J ’ s or deron al t ernat i ve g ro u n d s a n d d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l. JA 2 -3 . T h e B IA a g re e d w ith th e IJ’ s u lti m a te c o n c lu sio n th a t G a lli m o re h a d n o t b e e n “ law f u lly admi t t ed forperm anentr es i dence ” under§ 212( c) , and t hathe w as th e re f o re in e lig ib le f

o r a w a iv e r. B u t itd id so o n th e b a sis th a t h is 1995 convi ct i on al one pr ecl uded s uch r el i ef. W i t houtr efe r enci ng G al l i m or e’ s i ni t i al 1994 s t atus adj us tm ent , t he B I A expl ai ned: [ T ]h e re sp o n d e n t’s 1 9 9 5 d ru g c o n v ictio n c lea rly r ender ed hi m i nadmi s s i bl e t o t he U ni t ed St at es under [8 U

. S. C

. § 1182( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) ] as i tt hen exist ed. T hi s i nadmi s s i bi l i t yr ender ed the r es po n dent st atutor i l yi neli gibl e for adjustm ent of st atus beca use i tpr ecl uded hi m fr om demonst r at i ng t hathe w as “admi s s i b l e t o t he U ni t ed St at es forper m anent reside n ce , ” a s req u ir ed b y [8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 5 (a)(2)] .

. . . T hus , al t hough t he r es pondent ’ s stat us w as a d ju ste d to th a t o f

a law f u l p e r m a n e n t re sid e n t in 1996 i n co m pl i ance w i t h pr ocedur al for m al i t i es , he w a s n e v e r“ l a wfu l l y ” a d mi t t e d f o rp e r ma nentW e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he B I A ’ s fi nal or derof 4 rem o v al un d er 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2

. T h e issu es o f statuto ry i n t e rp r e t a t i o n p r e s e n t e d t o u s a r e p u r e q u e s t i o n s o f l a w, a n d we r evi ew t hem d e novo, s ubj ectt o appl i cabl e pr i nci pl es of age ncy d ef ere n ce . S ee V alan si v . A sh cro ft, 2 7 8 F

. 3 d 2 0 3 , 2 0 7 -09 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) ( d is c u s s i n g p ri n c ip le s o f d e f e re n c e u n d e r C h e v ro n U .S .A ., I nc. v. N atur al R es our ce s D efe ns e C ounci l , I nc. , 467 U

. S. 837 ( 1984) )

. T h ough t he B I A agr eed w i t h t he I J ’ s ul t i m at e l egal c o n c l u s i o n , i t d i d s o f

o r e x p r e s s l y d i f

f e r e n t r e a s o n s . A c c o r d i n g l y, b e c a u s e i td i d n o ta d o p to rd e f e rt o t h e I J ’ s f

i n d i n g s o ra n a l y s i s , we r evi ew onl yt he B I A ’ s deci s i on. K ang v. A t t ’ y G en. , __ F. 3d __,

__ , N o . 0 8 -47 9 0 , 2 0 1 0 U

. S

. A p p . L E X IS 1 3 9 5 8 , at *1 1 (3d C ir

. Ju ly 8 , 2 0 1 0 ); V o ci v. G o n za les, 4 0 9 F

. 3 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ); A b d u la i v . A s h c ro f

t, 2 3 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 9 n .2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).

7 r es i dence w i t hi n t he m eani ng of for m er [§] 212( c) of th e A c t b e c a u se a t th e tim e o f a d ju stm e n t h e c o u ld n o t sa tis f

yth e su b sta n tiv e leg a l re q u ire m e n ts associ at ed w i t h thatst atus. J A 2- 3. I n s uppor tof i t s expl anat i on, t he B I A ci t ed deci s i ons fr om t he C our t s of A ppeal s fort h e S ec o n d , Fi fth, E i ght h, N i nt h, and E l eventh C ir cui t s , as w el l as t w o of i t s ow n deci s i ons . J A 3. G iven it s h o lding , the B IA sp ec ifi ca ll y d ec li n ed to rev iew the IJ’s a n a ly sis re g a rd in g G a lli m o re ’s a lleg e d m isre p re se n ta ti o n s, a g a in o m itt in g m e n tio n o f

h is 1 9 9 4 sta tu s a d

ju stm e n t: B eca us e the r es pondent ’ s 1995 drug convi ct i on w as s uffi ci ent , w i t houtm or e, t o pr ecl u d e h i s 1996 a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s f ro m b e in g c o n sid e re d “ law f u l” w i t hi n t he meani ng of form er[§] 212( c) , w e nee d n o t d e c id e a t th is tim e w h e th e r, at th e tim e o f h is adj us t m ent , t he re s pondent w as al s o i nadmi s s i bl e for w ill f u llym isre p re se n tin g a m a ter ial f a c t. J A 3

. Ga l l i mo r e t h e n f

i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. 48 II. G a lli m o re a rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rre d w h e n it h e ld th a t h is convi ct i on al one re nder ed hi m i nel i gi bl e fordi s cr et i onaryr el i ef under I N A § 212( c)

. B eca us e t he B I A ’ s anal y s i s i n al l l i kel i hood r es t s on an hi s t or i cal l yi nacc ur at e pr emi s e, i tcannots t and. A lt ern a tiv e ly, t o the e x tent that o n e c an g lean fro m the B IA ’s opi ni on an i nt erpr et at i on t heor et i cal l ys uppor t i ng i t s di s pos i t i on, w e h o ld th a t th e B I A ’ s o p in io n f a ils a d e q u a telyto e x p lain its r e a s o n i n g a n d , i n a n ye v e n t , a p p e a r s i n c o r r e c ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. W h a tev e r th e c a se , th e B IA ’s o p in io n is i n su f f icie n t to su p p o rt its di s m i s s al of G al l imor e’ s appea l

. W e w i l l t her efor e gr antt he peti t i on and rem and t he m at t er t o the B IA for further proceedings. A

. A n al i en mayobt ai n L PR s t atus undert he I N A byvi r tue of h i s ma r r i a g e t o a c i t i z e n o f t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s . P u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S

. C. § 1186a, t h a ts t a tu s i s “ c o n d i t i o n a l ” f o rt h e f i r s tt wo y e a r s o f

t he m arr i age. See V asq u ez v . H o lder, 60 2 F

. 3 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 6 (9th C ir

. 2 0 1 0 ); C ab rera-P ere z v . G o n z ales, 45 6 F

. 3 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 (3d C ir

. 2006) ( percur i am). Subpar agr aph ( a) ( 1) pr ovi des that “an a l i en s pous e . . . s hal l be cons i der ed, at t he t i m e of obt ai ni ng t he s t atus of an a l i en l aw fu ll y admi t t ed forper m anentr es i dence , t o have obt ai ned such st atus on a condi t i onal bas i s s ubj ectt o t he pr ovi s i ons o f th is s e c tio n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 6 a (a )(1 ). T h e p u rp o se o f th is s cheme i s obvi ous : t o ferr etouts h am m arr i ages ent er ed i nt o for t he purpos e of obt ai ni ng entr yi nt o t he U ni t ed S tat es . See C abr er a- Per ez, 456 F. 3d at111; see al s o C arpi o v. H ol der , 592 F. 3 d 1 0 9 1 , 1 0 9 4 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( “ Con g r e s s p a s s ed t he Im m i gr at i on M arr i age Fr aud A m endment s ( I M FA ) [cont ai ni ng § 1 1 8 6 a ] . . . , w h ich so u g h t to d e ter f ra u d b ya lien s s e e k in g to acqui r e l aw ful perm anent r es i dence i n t he U ni t ed S t at es bas ed on m arr i age t o U ni t ed S ta t es ci t i zens orl aw ful per m anentr es i dent al i ens . ”) ; C hoi n v. M ukas ey , 537 F. 3d 1116, 1120 ( 9t h C i r . 2008) ( “The purp o se o f t he I M FA w as ‘ t o det eri m m i gr at i on- r el at ed m arriage fra u d an d o ther im m igrati o n fra u d

. ’” (cit ati o n o m itted)). U n d er § 1 1 8 6 a, if at a n y ti m e b ef o re the sec o n d an n iversa ry of the al i en havi ng obt ai ned condi t i onal L PR s t atus , t he A t t or neyT h e A ttorn eyG en era l has n ev er c h all en g ed G all im o re’s 5 m a rria g e a s f

ra u d u len t. 9 G ener al l earns that t he mar r i age w as fr audul entorhas been annul l ed ort erm i nat ed, t he A t t or neyG ener al “s hal l t erm i nat e the perm anentr es i dents t atus of the al i en . . . as of th e dat e of the det erm i nat i on. ” 8 U

. S. C

. § 1186a( b) ( 1)

. T erm i nat i on of condi t i onal perm anent r es i dents t atus r ender s t he al i en r emovabl e. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )( 1 )( D )( i)

. I n or dert o have the condi t i ons r emoved, t he al i en and ci t i zen- s pous e mustfi l e a j oi nt pet i t i on s t at i ng “thatt he mar r i age, i n s um an d su bs t ance , w as notent er ed i nt o fort he purpos e of gai ni ng [the] al i en’ s entr yas an i m m i gr ant
. ” C abr er a- Per ez, 456 F .3 d a t 1 1 1 ; se e a lso 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 6 a (c )(1 )(A ), (d )(1 ). T h is pet i t i on m us tbe fi l ed dur i ng the ni nety - dayper i od befor e the s e c o n d a n n i v e r s a r yo f

t h e a l i e n ’ s a d mi s s i o n a s a c o n d i t i o n a l LP R. 8 U

. S. C

. § 1186a( d) ( 2) ( A )

. T he st atut e re qui r es t he al i en and the ci t i zen- s pous e t o appea rforan i nt ervi ew w i t h C IS , butt he A tto rn e yG e n e ra l m a yw a iv e th a t r e q u ir e m e n t. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1186a( c) ( 1) ( B ) , ( d) ( 3) ; 8 C

. F. R

. § 216. 4( b)

. U pon ver i fi cat i on t hat th e f a c t s i n th e p e titio n a re tru e , “ th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l s h a ll . . . r emove t he condi t i onal bas i s of t he [al i en’ s s t atus ] eff ect i ve as of t he sec ond anni ver s aryof the al i en’ s obt ai ni ng t he s t atus of l aw ful ad m issi o n fo r pe rm an en t r esid en ce . ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 8 6 a(c )(3 )( B ); s ee a l s o V as quez, 602 F. 3d at 1006; C hoi n, 537 F. 3d at1118- 19. 5
I f a c o n di t i onal L PR fai l s t o fi l e a t i m el ypet i t i on for r emoval of the condi ti o ns , orfai l s t o appea rforan un- w ai ved i nt ervi ew , t he A t t or neyG ener al or di nar i l ym us t t erm i nat e the al i en’ s condi t i onal L PR s t atus as of the s econd a nn ive r s aryt hat s t atus w as obt ai ned. 8 U

. S. C

. § 1186a( c) ( 2) ; s ee a l s o V as quez, 602 F

. 3 d at 10 0 6

. S ec ti o n 1 1 8 6 a c o n tai n s n o p rov isi o n , h o w ev er, r equi r i ng t he A t t or neyG ener al t o t erm i nat e an a l i en’ s condi t i onal s t a tu s u p o n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e . A d d i t i o n a l l y, t he “condi t i ons ” i m pos ed by § 1186a – as i de fr om the m arr i ager el at ed form al i t i es t o w hi ch w e have r efe r r ed – nei t herr es t r i ctt he r i ght s norexpan d the obl i gat i ons of a c ondi t i onal L PR

. T he A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, i n f

a c t, h a s p ro m u lg a ted re g u latio n s s tatin g th a t,10 e x c e p twh e r e o t h e r wi s e s p e c i f i e d , c o n d i t i o n a l LP Rs e n j o yt h e s a me rig h ts an d p riv ileg e s a s th o se L P R s w h o se sta tu s is n o t co n d iti o n a l. See g e n e ra lly 8 C .F .R . § § 2 1 6 .1 -2 1 6 .6

. B

. B efor e i t s r epea l byt he Il lega l Im m igrat i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i t yA ctof 1996 ( “IIR IR A ”) , Pub. L

. N o. 1 0 4 -2 0 8 , 1 1 0 S tat. 3 0 0 9 -5 4 6 , IN A § 2 1 2 (c ) p e rm itt e d c e rta in im m ig ra n ts f

o u n d d e p o rta b le o n th e b a sis o f a c rim in a l o f

f e n se to appl yfordi s cr et i onaryr el i ef – know n as “w aive r” – fr om depor t at i on. See Ponnapul a v. A s hcr oft , 373 F. 3d 480, 486 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). S e c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) sta ted in p e rtin e n t p a rt: “A lien s la w f u lly admi t t ed forperm anentr es iden ce w ho t empora r i l ypr ocee ded abr oad vol unt ar i l y and not underan or derof deport at i on, and w ho a r e r e tu r n i n g t o a l a wfu l u n r e l i n q u i s h e d d o mi c i l e of s even cons ecut i ve y ear s , m ay be admi t t ed i n t he di s cr et i on of the A t t orney G eneral

. . . . ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 118 2(c) (1994 ). T ho u g h th is pr ovi s i on l i t er al l yappl i ed onl yt o excl us i on pr ocee di n g s w hen L PR s r etu rne d fr om abr oad, j udi ci al and admi ni s t r at i ve i nt erpr et at i ons ext ended i t s pr ot ect i on t o depor t at i on pr ocee di ngs as w el l

. See I N S v. St

. C yr , 533 U

. S. 289, 295 ( 2001) ; A t ki ns on v. A t t ’ yG en. , 479 F. 3d 222, 225- 26 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ; M at t erof Si l va, 1 6 I. & N . D e c . 2 6 , 3 0 (B IA 1 9 7 6 ). D esp it e IIR IR A ’s rep e a l o f § 2 1 2 (c), the S u p rem e C o u rt hel d i n St

. C yrt hatdi s cr et i onaryrel i ef unde r§ 212( c) “r emai ns avai l abl e foral i ens . . . w hos e convi ct i ons w er e obt ai ned thr ough pl ea a gr eement s and w ho .

. . w oul d have be en el i gi bl e for§ 212( c) r el i ef a tt he t i m e of thei rpl ea unde rt he l aw then in ef fect

. ” 533 U

. S

. at32 6. Iti s und i spute d th a t G al l i m ore sat i sfi es the fir st p o r t i o n o f t h i s s t a n d a r d , a s h e p l e a d e d g u i l t y b e f or e I I RI RA becam e effecti ve. B ut t o b e el i gibl e for a w ai ver, G al l i m ore m ust a lso h a v e b e e n “ law f

u llya d m itt e d f

o r p e rm a n e n t re sid e n c e .” T h is is th e o v e ra rc h in g is s u e b e f o re u s . C

. A n al i en w ho becomes an L PR t hr ough fr aud has notbeen

“ la w f u lly a d m itte d ” f

o r § 2 1 2 (c ) p u rp o s e s . M a tte r o f T

-- -, 6 I. &See Shi n v. H o lder, 6 0 7 F. 3d 1213, 1217 ( 9t h C i r . 2010) 6 ( “ Al t h o u g h t h e f

a c t s o f

. . . Kol o a ma t a n g i i n v o l v e [ d ] act s of personal fr aud or m i sr epresent at i on , [i t s ] ho l di ng [] br oa dl yde e m [s] al l gr ant s of L PR s t atus t hat w er e not i n s ubs t anti v e com pl i ance 11 N

. D e c . a t1 3 7

- 3 8

. T h i s i s s o b e c a u s e “ [ t ] h e t e r m ‘ l a w f u l l y’ d en o tes co m p li an ce w ith su b stan ti v e leg al req u ir em en ts, n o t m ere pr ocedur al r egul ar i t y. . . . ” I n r e L ongs t aff , 716 F. 2d 1439, 1441 ( 5t h C i r . 1983) ; s ee al s o M ej i a- O r el l ana v. G onzal es , 502 F. 3d 13, 1 6 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (“ B IA p re c e d e n t h o ld s tha t a lien s ar e in e lig ib le for [ w ai ver ]

. . . w her e theyhave a cqui r ed perm anentr es i dent s t atus byfr aud orm i s r epr es ent at i on, beca us e they h av e notbeen law f u llyad m itted f

o r pe rm an en t r esid en ce . ” (c it ing In re K o loam atangi , 23 I

. & N

. D ec. 548, 551 ( B I A 2003) ) ) ; B i ggs v. IN S , 5 5 F .3 d 1 3 9 8 , 1 4 0 1 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). T hus , an al i en w hos e s t atus has been adj us t ed t o L PR – but w ho i s s ubs equent l ydet erm i ned t o have obt ai ned thats t atus adj us t m entt hr ough fr aud – has not b ee n “law ful l yadmi t t ed for perm anentr es i dence ” bec aus e the “a l i en i s deemed, ab i ni t i o, never t o have obt ai ned [LPR ] s t atus . ” K ol oamat angi , 23 I

. & N

. D ec. at 5 5 1

. S u c h a n a l i e n , t h e r e f o r e , i s i n e l i g i b l e f

o r§ 2 1 2 ( c ) r e l i e f

. As s etout above, t he IJ i n t hi s cas e found t hat G al l i m or e had obt ai ned his L P R st atus byw i l l full ym i sr epresent i ng or om i t t i ng h is arres t and convi ct i on on m ul t i pl e occa s i ons , and ther efor e conc l uded that he w as i nel i gi bl e for§ 212( c) r el i ef be caus e hi s 1994 s t atus a d ju s tm e n t h a d n o t b e e n “ la w f u l.” T he r eas oni ng of M at t erof T--

- and K ol oamat angi has been ext ended t o s i tuat i ons out s i de of f r aud and mi s r epr es ent at i on. C f. K o lo a m a tan g i, 23 I. & N . D e c . a t 5 5 0 (“ [ T ]h e ter m ‘la w f u lly admi t t ed for perm anent r es i dence ’ d[oes ] notappl yt o al i ens w ho had obt ai ned thei rperm anentr es i dents t atus byfr aud, or ha d ot herw i s e notbeen e nt i t l ed t o i t
. ” ( emphasi s added))

. W her e an a lien o b tain s L P R sta tu s thr o u g h a d m in istra tiv e o v e rsig h t

– d e sp ite bei ng i nel i gi bl e fort hats t atus forone re as on oranother– s ever al of ours i s t ercour t s of appe al s have de ferr ed t o B I A deci s i ons concl udi ng t hatt he al ien h as not been “ l aw ful l yadmi t t ed for perm anentr es i dence

. ” A s w e have expl ai ned, t he B I A aff i r m ed 6w ith the im m igrati o n law s to b e v o id ab init io.”); W alke r v. H o lder, 5 8 9 F

. 3 d 1 2 , 2 0 -21 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( h o ld in g that w h ere ali en ’s s t atus w as pr ocur ed thr ough fr aud of th i r d par t i es and w i t hout pet i t i oner ’ s know l edge orpar t i ci pat i on, “i ti s n o td e t e rm i nat i ve that Pet i t i oner hi m s el f i nt ended t o comm i tfr aud i n obt ai ni ng admi s s i on t o the U ni t ed S t at es for per m anent r es i dence ” bec aus e he ha d not been “ l aw ful l yadmi t t ed” i n any event ) ; D e La R os a v. D H S, 489 F

. 3 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 4 -55 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) (pe r cu ri am ) (de fe rri n g to B IA ’s co n clus ion that p eti ti o n er h ad n o t bee n “law fu ll yad m itted” w h ere s he had notbeen pr es ent i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1982, y ethad bee n ad m itted p u rsua n t t o an am n estyp rog ram r equ ir ing su ch p rese n ce ); Savour yv. A t t ’ yG en. , 449 F. 3d 1307, 1313 ( 11t h C i r . 2006) ( “The ad v erb ‘l aw fu ll y ’ re q u ir es m o re tha n the a b sen ce o f f rau d

. It r equi r es cons i s t encyw i t h al l appl i cabl e l aw . ”) ; A r el l ano- G ar ci a v. G onzal es , 429 F. 3d 1183, 1187 ( 8t h C i r . 2005) ( “W e conc l ude that t he age ncy ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of ‘ l aw ful ’

. . . i s r eas onabl e and a ppl i es n o to n l ywhe r e t h e r e h a s b e e n f r a u d i n t h e p r o c u r e me n to f t he adj us t ed s t atus , butal s o t o a s i tuat i on w her e th e ali en w as not ent i t l ed t o an adj us t m ent but r ece i ved i t bya negl i gentm i s t ake of t he age ncy . ”) ; M onetv. I N S, 791 F. 2d 752, 753- 54 ( 9t h C i r . 1986) ( concl udi ng t hat pet i t i oner ’ s pr i orconvi ct i on w oul d have r ender ed hi m i nel i gi bl e for ad

j us t m entt o L PR att he t i m e hi s s t atus w as adj us t ed, and thus t hathe had not been “l aw ful l yadmi t t ed” t o t he U ni t ed S t a t e s ) ; I n r e Lo n g s t a f f , 7 1 6 F. 2 d a t1 4 4 1 ( “ [ A] n a r r ow r eadi ng of the t erm ‘ l aw ful l yadmi t t ed’ di s t or ts i t s m eani ng. A d m issi o n is no t l aw fu l i f itis r eg u lar on lyin f o rm . T h e term ‘l aw full y ’ denotes com pli ance w i t h sub s t a nt i ve l egal r equ i rem ents , n o t m e re p ro c e d u ra l r e g u la ri ty . . . .”)

. 12 t he I J ’ s deci s i on on t hi s al t ernat i ve bas i s . Speci fi cal l y , i thel d t hat even tho u g h G all im o re’s ap p li ca ti o n fo r st atus ad justm en thad bee n a p p ro v e d in 1 9 9 6 , h is 1 9 9 5 c o n v ictio n re n d e re d h im leg a lly in e lig ib le f

o r it b e c a u se th e c o n v ictio n re n d e re d h im in a d m iss ib le at t hat t i m e. T hus , r eas oned t he B I A , i r r es pect i ve of a nym at er i al m isr e p rese n tat ion s h e m ayo r m ayn o t hav e m ad e, G all im o re’s 1996 s t atus adj us t m ent had not been “ l aw ful , ” ther ebydes t r oy i ng hi s el i gi bi l i t yfor§ 212( c) r el i ef. G a lli m o re d o e s n o t ch a llen g e – a n d w e a re in c o m p lete13 agr eementw i t h – the fu ndament al r eas oni ng of the fr aud l i ne of cas es ( K ol oamat angi and M at t erof T--

- ) and the appl i cat i on of that r eas oni ng t o w hatw e s hal l r efe rt o as “non- fr aud ca s es . ” The a ge nc y ’ s de t e r mi na t i on t ha ton e do e s no t“ l a w fu l l y ” ob t a i n LPR s t atus t hr ough fr aud i s cert ai nl ya r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on of § 2 1 2 (c) an d that statu tory an aly sis is en ti tl ed to d ef ere n ce . F u rth er, w e di s cern n o p ri n ci pl ed di s t i nct i on betw een ( 1) fi ndi ng a s t atus adj us t m ent not “l aw ful ” bec aus e the appl i cantpr ocur ed i tt hr ough fr aud; and ( 2) fi ndi ng a st atus adj us t m entnot“l aw ful ” bec aus e the a p p lic a n t w a s n o t le g a lly e n title d to it f o r a n yo th e r r e a s o n . A ccor di ngl y , w e def

ert o t he B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of § 212( c) t hat“an a l i en w hos e s t atus has been a dj us t ed t o l aw ful perm anentr es i dentbutw ho is s ubs equent l ydet erm i ned i n an i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ng t o have or i gi nal l ybeen i nel i gi bl e fort hat statu s h as n o t bee n ‘l aw fu ll yad m itted f o r pe rm an en t r esid en ce . ’” De La Ro s a v . DHS, 4 8 9 F

. 3 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 4 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) (c iti n g K o lo a m a tan g i, 2 3 I. & N

. D e c . a t 5 5 1 ). In d o in g so , w e jo in “the dec i s i ons of ours i s t er ci r cui t s , w hi ch have uni for m l yadopt ed t he same defi ni t i on of t he phra s e ‘l aw ful l y admi t t ed forperm anent r es i dence ’ ei therbyfi ndi ng t hatt he phr as e i s u n am b iguous orby gr ant i ng defe r ence t o t he B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on. ” Id. (cit at i ons o m itte d ). T hati s not , how ever , t he en d o f t he mat t er . T hough G al l i m or e does notat t ack the r eas oni ng of the non- fr aud ca s es , he chal l enges t hei r appl i cabi l i t y her e. H i s ar gum ent i s one of t i m i ng. C f. i d

. a t5 5 5 ( “ [ T] o b e ‘ l a wfu l l ya d mi t t e d f o rp e rma n ent r es i dence ’ an al i en must have com pl i ed w i t h t he subs t ant i ve l egal r equi r ement s i n pl ace att he t i m e she w as admi t t ed forperm anent r es i dence. ” ( emphasi s added) )

. Factual l y , t hi s cas e i s unl i ke any o t h e rwe h a v e c i t e d , b e c a u s e h e r e t h e r e a r e t w o p o i n t s i n t i me p o ten tiallyre lev a n t to w h e th e r an d w h e n G a lli m o re w a s “ law f u lly ad m itted fo r p erm an en t reside n ce . ” T h ese tw o d ates, m o re o v er, s t r addl e the dat e of t he pot ent i al l y di s qual i fy i ng convi ct i on. U pon m arr y i ng a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen i n 1994, G al l i m or e “obt ai n[ed] t he s t atus of an a l i en l aw ful l yadmi t t ed for per m anentr es i dence , ” y et t hats t atus by l aw w as “cons i der ed

. . . t o [be]

. . . on a condi t i onal b a s is ” u n til th e c o n d itio n s w e re re m o v e d in 1 9 9 6 . 8 U .S .C . § 1186a( a) ( 1)

. I n t he i nt er i m , i n 1995, G al l i m or e w as convi ct ed onT h e o b v io u s c a v e a t to th is is th a t ev e n if 1 9 9 4 is 7 det erm i ned t o be the r el evantdat e, t hatw ould s t i l l l eave for r es ol ut i on t he I J ’ s anal y s i s reg ar di ng G al l i m or e’ s al l eged m isre p re se n tatio n s. W e tak e n o p o sitio n o n th e IJ’ s an a ly sis a t th is t i m e. A r egul at i on pr om ul gat ed pur s uantt o t hi s pr ovi s i on

8 cont ai ns t he ident i cal defi ni t i on, butadds t hat“[s ] uch s t atus t erm i nat es upon entr yof a fi nal admi ni s t r at i ve or der of exc l us i on, depor t at i on, orr emoval. ” 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1. 1( p)

. Sei zi ng on t he r egul at i on’ s addi t i onal l anguage , G al l i m or e ar gues t hat h is st atus c o u ld o n lyh a v e b e e n c h a n g e d b ya f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. G a lli m o re B r. at 1 8 . T h e B I A r e jec ted th is v e rya rg u m e n t in K o lo a m a tan g i, e x p lain in g th a t th e e x tra v e rb iag e w a s in ten d e d to cl ar i fyonl yt hat“an a l i en’ s per m anentresi dents t atus , w hi ch has been l aw ful l yobt ai ned, t erm i nat ed w i t h t he entr y o f a fi nal admi ni s t r at i ve or der of deport at i on, ” butt hatt he l aw ful nes s of the 14 th e d ru g c h a rg e s . T he ques t i o n , then, i s i n w haty earw as G al l i m or e’ s s t atus adj us t ed ( pr oper l yori m pr oper l y ) t o t hat of “l aw ful l yadmi t t ed for perm anent r es i dence ”? W as i t i n 1994, w hen he f i r s tw as admi t t ed as a condi t i onal perm anentr es i dent ? O rw as i t i n 1996, w hen the condi t i ons w er e r emoved? I f 1994 i s t he r el evantdat e, t hen G al l i m or e w oul d notbe i nel i gi bl e for§ 212( c) r el i ef for t he r eas ons s t at ed byt he B I A

. T hi s w oul d be s o beca us e he had noty etbeen convi ct ed i n 1994 and, as of t hatdat e, he otherw i s e appe ar ed t o be in c o m p lian c e w ith a ll rele v a n t leg a l r e q u ire m e n ts n e c e ss a ryto obt ai n perm anentr es i dentstatus . C onver s el y , i f 1996 i s t he 7 r el evantdat e, t hen the B I A ’ s appl i cat i on of the non-f r aud ca s es w i l l c a r r y t h e d a y. D

. T he I N A d ef

i nes t he phr as e “l aw ful l yadmi t t ed for p e rm a n e n t re sid e n c e ” a s th e “ sta tu s o f h a v in g b e e n law f

u lly acc or ded the pr i vi l ege of r es i di ng perm anent l yi n t he U ni t ed St at es as an i m m i g ran t in a ccor dance w i t h t he i m m i gr at i on l aw s , s uch statu s n o t hav ing ch an g ed

. ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 2 0 ). In su p p o rt 8s t atus di d nottur n on w hen the al i en phy s i cal l y d ep arte d t he co u n try . 2 3 I. & N

. D ec . at 5 5 0 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e B IA expl ai ned that“[t ] her e i s no i ndi cat i on . . . t he fi nal s ent ence [i n t he r egul at i on] w as i nt ended t o under m i ne the l ong- s t andi ng deci s i ons hol di ng t hat an al i en w as not‘ l aw ful l y ’ admi t t ed forper m anent r es i dents t atus i f, att he t i m e s uch s t atus w as acc or ded, he ors he w as notent i t l ed t o i t
. ” I d. A ccor di ngl y , “the i s s ue of w hetheran L PR r et ai ns her s t atus unt i l t he concl us i on of re m oval pr ocee di ngs i s di st i nct fr om w hethershe w as ‘ l aw full yadm i t t ed’ i n the fi rs t pl ace s o t hat s he m ay s eek r el i ef fr om r emoval

. . . . ” Shi n, __ F. 3d at __, 2010 U

. S. A pp. L E X I S 11933, at*10; acc or d Savour y , 449 F. 3d at1314. W hi l e G al l i m or e’ s ar gum enti s off the mar k, t he ques t i on of w hen hi s s t atus w as adj us t ed t o “l aw ful l yadmi t t ed for perm anen tres i den ce” no nethel ess r em ai ns. 15 of the B I A ’ s di s pos i t i on, t he A t t or neyG ener al a rgues t hat G al l i m or e ca nnotbe s ai d t o have be en ac cor ded the pr i vi l ege of re sid in g “ p e rm a n e n tly” in th e U n ited S tate s in 1 9 9 4 b e c a u se h is s t atus w as t hen s ubj ectt o “condi t i ons . ” B efor e addr es s i ng t he A t t or neyG ener al ’ s par t i cul ar ar gum enti n s uppor tof t he B I A ’ s opi ni on, w e foc us on t he opi ni on itse lf. T h e B IA a p p lied th e n o n - f r a u d c a se s s u a sp o n te, a n d in doi ng s o di d not expl ai n w hy a condi t i onal per m anentr es i denthas notm et– att he t i m e cond it iona l s t atus i ni t i al l yi s obt ai ned – § 110 1( a) ( 20) ’ s defi ni t i on of “l aw ful l yadmi t t ed forperm anent reside n ce . ” I n fac t , w hatl i t t l e expl anat i on t he B I A di d pr ovi de s t r ongl ys ugges t s that i tdi d notcons i dert he i s s ue atal l

. I ns t ead, i t appea r s far m or e l i kel y t hat t he B I A s i m pl yover l ooked the fa ct t hatG al l i m or e’ s s t atus i ni t i al l yhad bee n adj us t ed pur s uant t o § 1 1 8 6 a in 1 9 9 4 . C o n se q u e n tly , w e b e liev e th e B IA f a il e d to re c o g n ize th e re lev a n c e o f th a t d a te, a n d th a t th a t f a ilu re tain ted its e n tir e le g a l a n a lysis

. T he B IA t w i ce no t ed – w i t ho ut el abo rat i on and i n co ntr ast t o the IJ’s ex p li citrec o g n it ion that G all im o re’s “status w as adj us t ed to th a t o f

law f u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t o n Ju ly6 , 1 9 9 4 ”

– th a t h is st atus w as adj ust ed i n 199 6. M ore i m po rt antl y , t he B IA did not s o m uch as m ent i on § 1186a. W e w oul d expec tt hati f the B I A w as16 in ter p re tin g w h e th e r a n a lie n a d m itt e d u n d e r § 1 1 8 6 a is cat egor i cal l yi nel i gi bl e fora w ai verd u r i n g th e two- y e a rc o n d i t i onal per i od, t he age ncyw oul d have at l eas t ci t ed § 1186a. I ns t ead, t he B I A ci t ed onl y8 U

. S. C

. § 1255( a) ( 2) – r equi r i ng t hatan al i en be admi s s i bl e at t he t i m e of obt ai ni ng L PR s t atus – and concl uded that G al l im o re coul d nots at i s fyt hi s cr i t er i on beca us e hi s 1995 co n v ict ion ren d ere d h im inad m is s ib le in 1 9 9 6

. B u t i f G all im o re h a d a lre a d yb e e n a d m itt e d in 1 9 9 4 , a d e ter m in a tio n th a t h e w o u ld ot herw i s e have been i nadmi s s i bl e i n 1996 w oul d have no pr act i cal sig n if ica n c e . B yc o n c lu d in g th a t G a ll im o re w a s in a d m iss ib le in 199 6 w i t houtacknow l edgi ng t hathe had be en admi t t ed co n d it ion all yin 1994 ( w hen h e o sten siblyw as a d m issi b le), the B IA a p p e a rs to h a v e m ista k e n lya ss u m e d a s f a c t th a t 1 9 9 6 w a s th e o n ly y earr el evantt o G al l i m or e’ s el i gi bi l i t yfor§ 212( c) r el i ef. T h e A tt o rne yG en era l pro claim s b aldlythat the B IA ’s

“ in ter p re tatio n th a t [ G a lli m o re ] w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n ‘la w f u lly admi t t ed forperm anent r es i dence ’ unt i l 1996, w hen hi s condi t i ons w ere rem o v ed [,]” is en ti tl ed to C h ev ron d ef ere n ce . A tt ’yG en . B r. at 22

. B u t if the B IA sim p ly o v erloo k ed the f ac t th at G all im o re’s sta tu s w a s a d

ju ste d p u rsu a n t to § 1 1 8 6 a in 1 9 9 4 – a s w e stro n g ly s us pecti s t he ca s e – w e ar e notent i t l ed t o su sta i n i t s deci s i on on gr ou nd s t he A t t orne yG e ne r a l a r t i c ul a t e s e x pos t
. Se e Ro v. I N S, 670 F. 2d 114, 116 ( 9t h C i r . 1982) ( “A B I A deci s i on can be af firm ed o n lyo n the b asis arti cu lat ed in th e d ec isi o n . ”); acc o rd M oretv. K arn, 74 6 F. 2d 98 9, 99 2 (3d C i r. 19 84 ) ( “[A ] courtm ust eval uat e the pr opr i etyof an a gencyact i on s ol el yo n t he gr ounds i nv ok e d b y t he ag encyi n it s i nit i al determ i nati on . If .

. . t ho se gr ounds ar e i nadequa t e ori m pr oper , t he age ncyact i on m us tbe s et as i de. ”)

. A ccor di ngl y , our bel i ef t hatt he B I A ’ s anal y s i s pr ocee ded on a cr i t i cal l yi nacc ur at e fa ctual as s um pt i on compel s us t o gr ant G al l i m or e’ s pet i t i on and r emand the ca s e forfur t hercons i der at i on b yt h e BI A. W e c an n o t con clud e w ith ce rt ainty , h o w ev er, tha t th e B IA d i d n o tc o n s i d e rth e i n t e rp l a yb e t w e e n § § 1 1 8 6 a a n d 2 1 2 ( c )

. We think itap p rop ri ate, th ere fo re, t o ad d ress the A tto rne yG en era l’ s ar gum ent – t hat a condi t i onal L PR i s i nel i gi bl e for§ 212( c) r el i ef s o l ong as hi s s t atus r emai ns “condi t i onal , ” becaus e he ha s noty et achi eved the pri v i l ege of r es i di ng “perm anent l y ” i n t he U ni t edSee al s o A w ol es i , 341 F. 3d at232 ( “I n or derforus t o be 9 able t o g i ve m eanin gfu l revi ew t o the B IA ’s decis i on , w e m ust have s om e i ns i ght i nt o i t s r eas oni ng. ”) ; D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 268 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en ban c) ( St apl et on, J

. , di s s ent i ng) ( “[J ] udi ci al r evi ew nece s s ar i l yr equi res s om ethi ng t o r evi ew and, i f t he agenc y pr ovi des onl y i t s r es ul t w i t hout an expl anat i on of the under l y i ng fac tfi n d ing and anal y s i s , a courti s unabl e t o pr ovi de j udi ci al r evi ew . ”) ; A bdul ai , 239 F. 3d at555 ( “[T] he ava i l abi l i t yof ju d icia l re v ie w . . . n e c e ss a rilyc o n tem p late s s o m e th in g f o r u s to re v iew

. . . . B e c a u se th e B I A ’ s f a ilu re o f e x p lan a tio n m a k e s it i m pos s i bl e forus t o r evi ew i t s r at i onal e, w e gr ant [the] pet i t i on for re v ie w , v a c a te th e [ B IA ]’ s o rd e r, a n d re m a n d th e m a tte r . . . .” (em p h asis in o ri g inal )) ; S o tt o v . IN S , 7 4 8 F

. 2 d 8 3 2 , 8 3 7 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 4 ); cf

. S E C v . C h en ery C o rp., 3 3 2 U

. S

. 1 9 4 , 1 9 6 -97 (19 4 7 ) (“It w il l notdo fora courtt o be compel l ed t o gues s att he t h eo ry u n d erl y i ng t he ag ency ’s act i on ; no r can a cou rtbe ex pected to chi s el t hatw hi ch mustb e p rec i s e fr om w hatt he age ncyhas l eft vague a nd i ndeci s i ve. . . . W e mustknow w hata dec i s i on m eans b e f o re th e d u ty b e c o m e s o u rs to s a yw h e th e r i t is ri g h t o r w ro n g .” (q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ))

. 17 St at es and th u s h as notbeen “ l aw ful l yadmi t t ed forper m anent r es i dence

. ” A s an i ni t i al m at t er , i f t he B I A di d i ndeed i nt erpr et§§ 1186a and 21 2(c) i n the m ann er t hat t he A t t orneyG eneral no w sugg est s, i tdi d s o s ub s i l ent i o, pr ecl udi ng us fr om engagi ng i n m eani ngful re v ie w . “ W h i l e w e g iv e d e f e re n c e to th e d e c is io n s o f th e B IA

. .

. w e c an n o t g ive m ea n ing fu l rev iew to a d ec isi o n in w h ich th e B IA does notexpl ai n how i tcame t o i t s concl us i on. ” A w ol es i v. A sh cro ft, 3 4 1 F

. 3 d 2 2 7 , 2 2 8 -29 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). H ere , the B IA ’s 9 fai l ur e t o expl ai n it s i nt erpr et at i on ( i f any ) handi caps ent i r el your a b ility to re v ie w it f

o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . T o t he ext ent one can i ntui t fr om t he B I A ’ s opi ni on an i nt erpr et at i on thatcondi t ion al pe rm an en t r esid en ts are ine li g ibl e for § 212( c) r el i ef unl es s and unt i l t he condi t i ons have be en r emoved, t hatconcl us i on runs headl ong i nt o t he pl ai n l anguag e of § 1186a a n d its a c c o m p a n y in g re g u latio n s. T h is l a n g u a g e u n d e rm in e s – if18 i t does not for ecl os e ent i r el y – t he A t t or ney G ener al ’ s cl ai m t hat G al l i m or e had notbeen “ l aw f u l l ya c c o r ded the pr i vi l ege of r es i di ng perm anent l yi n t he U ni t ed St at es ” i n 1994, befor e hi s 1995 c o n v ic tio n . Sect i on 1186a, as w e have not ed, pr ovi des t hata condi t i onal perm anentr es i denti s one w ho has “obt ai n[ed] t he s t atus of an al i en l a wfu l l y a d mi t t e d f

o r p e r ma n e n t r e s i d e n c e . ” 8 U. S. C. § 1186a ( emphasi s ad d ed)

. I ti s t rue thats uch s t atus i s deemed “condi t i onal , ” perhaps s ugges t i ng that a condi t i onal L PR i s not l i t eral l yenti t l ed to resi de “p erm anen t l y ” i n the U nit ed S t at es so long a s t he mar r i age- r el at ed condi t i ons r emai n i n pl ace . C f. T he A m er i can H er i t age D i ct i onaryof the E ngl i s h L anguage , ( 4t h ed. 2 0 0 4 ) , a v a il a b le a t h t t p : / / d i c t i o n a r y . r e f e r e n c e . c o m / br ow s e/perm anent( l as tvi s i t ed J ul y12, 2010) ( defi ni ng “perm anen t ” i n p artas “[n]otexp ect ed to chan g e in st atus, co n d it ion , o r plac e” ). B ut ot her l anguage i n § 1186a under cut s deci s i vel ya l i t er al i nt erpr et at i on of the w or d “perm anent l y ” as a ppl i ed t o t he r es i dence s t atus of condi t i onal L PR s . Speci fi cal l y , t he pr ovi s i on governi ng r emoval of an a l i en’ s condi t i ons pr ovi des t hatt he condi t i ons are t o be r emoved “eff ect i ve as of the s econd anni ver s aryof the al i en’ s obt ai ni ng t he s t atus of l aw ful admi s s i on f o r p e rm a n e n t re s id e n c e .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 6 a (c )(3 )(B ) (e m p h a sis ad d e d )

. I f

t h e c o n d i t i o n s a r e t o b e r e mov e d o n t h e s e cond anni ver s aryof obt ai ni ng l aw ful per m anentr es i dents t atus , t hen by nece s s i t yt hat“perm anent ” s t atus i s obt ai ned on th e dat e of the i ni t i al adj us t m ent
. Sect i on 1186a( e) , conce r ni ng condi t i on al p e rm a n e n t re sid e n ts’ e lig ib ili tyf o r c iti z e n sh ip , co rro b o ra tes th is p o in t: Forpurpos es of [na tur ali zat i on] , i n t he ca s e of a n al i en w ho i s i n t he U n it ed St at es as a l aw ful p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t o n a c o n d iti o n a l b a sis u n d e r th is s e c t i o n , t h e a l i e n s h a l l b e c o n s i d e r e d t o h ave be en admi t t ed as an al i en l aw ful l yadmi t t ed forper m anent r es i dence and t o be i n t he U ni t ed St at es as an al i en l aw ful l yadmi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed S t at es forper m anent r es i dence

.19 8 U

. S. C

. § 1186a( e) ( emphasi s added)

. T hes e s t atut or ypr ovi s i ons unambi guous l yacc or d condi t i onal L PR s t he pr i vi l ege of r es i di ng “perm anent l y ” i n t he U n it ed St at es , not w i t hs t andi ng the l i t er al m eani ng of t he w or d “perm anent l y ” and the condi t i onal natur e of t he st atus. E q u a llyp la in is 8 C .F .R . § 2 1 6 .1 , w h ich p ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt: A condi t i onal per m anentr es i denti s an al i en w ho has been l aw ful l yadmi tt ed forperm anentr es i dence w ith in the m ea n ing o f [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(20 )], excep tt hat a cond i t i on al perm anen tresid ent i s al so su b je c t t o th e c o n d it io n s a n d r e s p o n s ib il it ie s s e t f o r th i n [§ 1186a]

. . . . U nl es s ot herw i s e s peci fi ed, t he r i ght s , pr i vi l eges , r es pons i bi l i t i es and dut i es w hi ch a p p lyto a ll o th e r la w f

u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n ts a p p ly equal l yt o condi t i onal perma n e n tr e s i d e n t s , i n cl udi ng but not l i m i t ed t o t he r i ghtt o appl yfornatur al i zat i on ( i f otherw i s e el i gi bl e) , t he r i ghtt o fi l e pet i t i ons on be h a l f o f q u a l i f y i n g r e l a t i v e s , t h e p r i v i l e g e of r es i di ng perm anent l yi n t he U ni t ed Stat es as a n i m m i granti n accordan ce w i t h the i m m i grat i on l aw s, s uch s t atus nothavi ng change d; t he dutyt o r egi s t er w i t h t he Sel ect i ve Servi ce Sy s t em, w hen r equi r ed; a n d t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c o mp l y i n g wi t h a l l l a ws and r egul at i ons of the U ni t ed St at es . A l l r efe r ence s w ith in th is c h a p ter to law f u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n ts app l yequ al l yt o co nd i t i on al perm anen tres id ents , u n le s s o th e rw is e s p e c if ie d

. 8 C .F .R . § 2 1 6 .1 (e m p h a se s a d d e d ). T h e re g u latio n e x p lain s, in contr as tt o t he A t t or neyG ener al ’ s l i t er al ar gum ent , t hat one of the p riv ileg e s to w h ich a c o n d it io n a l L P R is e n tit led is th e rig h t to r es i de “pe r m anent l y ” i n t he U ni t ed St at es . T he r egul at i on fur t her demonst r at es t hatcondi t i onal perm anentr es i dent s ar e, by defi ni t i on, “l aw ful l yadmi t t ed forperm anentr es i den ce , ” ther eby pl aci ng condi t i onal L PR s i n t he s ame posi t i on as non- condi t i onalO t herr egul at i ons deal i ng w i t h t he t erm i nat i on or 10 r evoca t i on of con d it i onal s t atus s i m i l ar l ypr ovi de thatw hen an al i en’ s condi ti o n al L PR s t atus ends , he l os es per m anentr es i dent s t atus . See 8 C

. F. R

. § 216. 4( b) ( 3) ( pr ovi di ng t hati f a c ondi t i onal L P R f a ils to a p p e a r f

o r a n u n w a iv e d in te rv iew o n a p e tit io n to r emove condi t i ons , “the al i en’ s per m anent r es i dence s t atus w i l l be a u to m a tic a llyter m in a ted a s o f th e se c o n d a n n iv e rsa ryo f th e d a te o n w h ich th e a lie n o b tain e d p e rm a n e n t re sid e n c e ” (e m p h a sis added) ) ; 8 C

. F. R

. § 216. 4( d) ( 2 ) (p r ovi di ng t hati f the A t t or ney G eneral den i es a c on dit i on al L P R ’s peti t i on t o rem ov e con dit i on s, the “ ali en ’s l aw fu l p erm an en t reside n t st atus sh all b e term inated ”). B utone w oul d expec tt hat befor e per m anentr es i dents t atus can be te rm in a te d , a c o n d itio n a l L P R m u s t h a v e it in th e f ir s t p la c e . W e ar e aw ar e of onl yt w o ot hers ect i ons i n t he I N A t hat 11 cro ss- r efe r ence § 1186a: ( 1) 8 U

. S. C

. § 1228( b) ( s ubj ect i ng co n d it ion al L P R s to e x p ed it ed rem o v al pro ce ed ing s); an d (2) 8 U

. S. C

. § 1255( d) ( pr ohi bi t i ng t he A t t or neyG ener al fr om gr ant i ng t o c o n d i t i o n a l LP Rs u n c o n d i t i o n a l s t a tu s u n d e rt h e g e n e r a l LPR p ro g ra m ); se e g e n e ra lly K a lal v

. G o n z a les , 4 0 2 F .3 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 1 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W e lea v e it t o th e B IA to a d d r e s s o n re m a n d , if n e c e ss a ry , th e e f

f e c t o f th e se p ro v isio n s o n G a lli m o re ’s e lig ib ili ty f o r § 2 1 2 (c ) r e lie f

. 20 L PR s , exce ptas t he I N A pr ovi des ot herw i s e. 10
T he I N A t hus equat es condi t i onal L PR s w i t h “ful l

- fl edged” L PR s , exce ptt o t he ext ent– butonl yt o t he ext en t – t hat§ 1186a pr es cr i bes addi t i onal obl i gat i ons . A nd s o l ong as a condi t i onal L P R co m p li es w ith tho se o b li g ati o n s, theyd o n o t aff ec t th e a li en ’s “pr i vi l ege of

r es i di ng perm anent l yi n t he U ni t ed S ta t es as an im m ig ra n t in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e im m ig ra tio n la w s .” 8 C .F .R . § 216. 1. Hav i n g c o n s i der ed § 1186a a nd t he r egul at i ons pr om ul gat ed t her eunder , w e ca n per cei ve o f no r eas on w hycondi t i onal perm anentr es i dent s s houl d notbe dee m ed “l aw ful l yadmi t t ed for perm anentr es i dence ” as of the dat e thei rs t atus i s i ni t i al l yadj us t ed. T he s t atut or y and r egul at or y s cheme appea r s t o gr ant condi t i onal perm anent r es i dent s t he pr i vi l ege of r es i di ng “perm anent l y ” i n t he U ni t ed St at es and – upon compl i ance w it h § 1186a’ s m arr i ager el at ed r equi r ement s – t he r i ghtt o r et ai n t hatpr i vi l ege. 1121 W h i l e a tp r e s e n twe a r e a war e o f n o a u t h o r i t ys u g g es t i ng t hata condi t i onal perm anent r es i dent i s cat egor i cal l yi nel i gi bl e for § 212( c) r el i ef dur i ng t he tw o- y earcondi t i onal per i od, w e bel i eve t hatprudence couns el s caut i on. W i t houtexpl i ci tB I A i nputon t he i s s ue – and be caus e the p robabl e fa ctual over s i ghtt hatw e have d isc u ss e d re q u ire s u s to re m a n d in a n y e v e n t – it is a p p ro p ria te to al l ow t he B I A t o addr es s t he A tt o rneyG ener al ’ s ar gum enti n t he f irst in sta n c e , sh o u ld it f

in d th e n e e d to d o so . “A c o u rt o f a p p e a ls i s gener al l ynotempow er ed t o conduct a de novo i nqui r yi nt o t he m at t erbei ng r evi ew ed and t o r eac h it s ow n concl us i ons bas ed on s uch an i nqui r y . ” I N S v . V entur a, 537 U

. S. 12, 16 ( 2002) ( per cu ri am ) (cit ati o n an d interna l q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). “R athe r, t he pr oper cour s e, exce pti n r ar e ci r cumst ance s , i s t o r emand t o t he ag en cyfo r ad d it ion al i n v esti g ati o n o r ex p lana ti o n . ” Id

. ; acc o rd N egus i e v. H ol der , __ U

. S. __, __, 129 S. C t. 1159, 1164 ( 2009) ( “W hen the B I A has nots poken on ‘ a mat t er that st atut es pl ace pr i m ar i l y i n agenc y hands , ’ our or di nary rul e i s t o r emand t o ‘ gi ve t h e BI A t h e o p p o r tu n i t yt o a d d r e s s t h e ma t t e ri n t h e f i r s ti n s t a n ce i n l i ghtof i t s ow n exper i ence . ’ ” ( quot i ng V entur a, 5 3 7 U

. S. at 16- 17 ) ) ; G onzal es v. T hom as , 547 U

. S. 183, 183- 87 ( 2006) ( per c u ri a m ). W e fol l ow t hat cour s e her e, and do notatt hi s t i m e rul e out t he i nt erpr et at i on t he A t t or neyG ener al es pous es . T he B I A i s bet t er pos i t i oned t o und ert ake a hol i s t i c r evi ew of al l s t atut or yand reg u lat o ryp rov isi o n s p o tential lyb ea ri n g o n a c o n d itio n al L P R ’s el i gi bi l i t y for § 212( c) r el i ef. O f cour s e, t he B I A m ayw i s h i ns t ead s i m p l y t o c o r r e c tt h e f

a c tu a l o v e r s i g h tt h a t w e b e l i e v e l e d i ta s t r a y. I f s uch a c or r ect i on obvi at es t he n ee d t o addr es s t he A t t or ney G e n e ra l’s a rg u m e n t, th e B IA sh o u ld a d d re ss th e IJ’ s f ra u d a n a ly sis i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . See Par ej a v. A t t ’ yG en. , __ F. 3d __, __, N o. 08- 4598, 2010 U

. S. A pp. L E X I S 15656, at *42- 43 ( 3d C i r . J ul y29, 2010) ( gr ant i ng a pet i t i on forr evi ew and r emandi ng t o al l ow t he B IA to either c lari fy its d e c ision o r, u p o n rec o g n it ion o f e rror, anal y ze the cl ai m anew us i ng t he corr ectpr i nci pl es , w here t he “meani ng of the B I A ’ s deci s i on” w as “unce r t ai n[] ”)

. I n ei t hercas e, how ever , the B IA m us t– as al w ay s – expl ai n i t s r eas oni ng s u f f i c i e n t l yt o e n a b l e p r o p e ra p p e l l a t e r e v i e w.22 III

. G al l i m or e al s o ar gues t hat hi s r emoval i s now barr ed byt he fiv e-y ea r st atut e o f li m it ati o n s estab li sh ed in 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 6 (a). H e d id n o t ra ise th is c la im to e ith e r th e IJ o r th e B IA . It i s th e re f o re u n e x h a u ste d , le a v in g u s w ith o u t ju risd ictio n to re v iew it. S ee B in L in v

. A tt ’yG en . , 5 4 3 F

. 3 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ). I V. F o r th e f

o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l gran t G all im o re’s pet i t i on forr evi ew and r em an d the cas e t o t he B I A forfur t her pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.