United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60411

Summary Calendar

Anselmo Medrano Gonzalez, also known as Anselmo 

Medrano, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A090 766 086

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Anselmo Medrano Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 25, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60411 Document: 00516068042 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2021
No. 20-60411

2

his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his claim for adjustment 

of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i).

This court reviews the final decision of the BIA and will only consider 

the IJ’s decision where it influenced the decision of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 

493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Factual findings are reviewed under the 

substantial evidence standard and legal questions de novo, giving deference 

to the BIA’s interpretation of any ambiguous immigration statutes. See 

Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the 

substantial evidence standard, we may not reverse an immigration court’s 

factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable 

factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th 

Cir. 2009).

An alien physically present in the United States may apply for 

adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 

residence. § 1255(i). The Attorney General may grant the application if, 

inter alia, the alien is admissible to the United States for permanent 

residence. § 1255(i)(2)(A). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), an alien is 

inadmissible if at any time he “knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, 

abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States 

in violation of law.” In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under 

the statute, this court considers his actual conduct rather than a conviction 

for a criminal offense. See Soriano v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 318, 321 (5th Cir. 

2007). As an applicant seeking to adjust his status, Medrano Gonzalez must 

show that he is “clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted and is not 

inadmissible under § 1182.” Id. at 320 n.1 (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted).

Medrano Gonzalez was convicted in 1990 of transporting aliens within 

the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B). The

Case: 20-60411 Document: 00516068042 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2021
No. 20-60411

3

transportation of aliens as part of a scheme to assist illegal entry falls within 

the ambit of inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), and our decision to this 

effect is binding under the rule of orderliness. See Soriano, 484 F.3d at 321; 

United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2014). Here, Medrano 

Gonzalez’s actual conduct—which included transporting aliens both prior to 

and after their illegal entry into the United States—reflected his involvement 

in such a scheme. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in finding that Medrano 

Gonzalez was ineligible to adjust status under § 1255(i) because his 

participation in the scheme rendered him inadmissible under 

§ 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). See Soriano, 484 F.3d at 321; Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d 

at 517-18; Wang, 569 F.3d at 537.

DENIED.

Case: 20-60411 Document: 00516068042 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/25/2021