A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al arg u m en t. S ee F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril25,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT BE RN AR DO PAD I LLA- PLAN CA RTE,

P eti ti o n er, v. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, At t o rn e yGe n e r a l ; DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y; I MMI G R A T I O N A N D C U S T O MS ENFO RCEM ENT,

R espon den t s. N o. 06- 9526 ( N o. A 74- 575- 063) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , M c KAY , and AN DE RS ON , C i rcui tJudg es.

B ernar do Padi l l a- Pl anca r t e, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of M exi co, pet i t i ons for re v iew o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls’ (“ B IA ” ) d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to- 2-

r eopen hi s cas e t o appl yforadj us t m entof hi s s t atus . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) , w e AF F I RM t he B I A ’ s deci s i on. I Padi l l a- Pl anca r t e appe ar ed w i th hi s fami l yata r emoval hear i ng on February10, 1999, w hi l e s t i l l a t eena ger . A tt he conc l us i on of the hea r i ng, t he i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) gr ant ed the fa m i l yfourm onths t o vol unt ar i l ydepartt he U ni t ed St at es and, i n t he eve ntfami l i es m ember s di d not , or der ed them re m oved t o M exi co. Padi l l a- Pl anca r t e di d notl eave t he country . O n February15, 2001, aft erbei ng appr ehende d byi m m i gr at i on author i t i es , he w as r emoved t o M exi co pu r s ua ntt o the 19 99 or de r . A ts ome p oi ntt he r e a ft e r , hi s un c l e fi l e d a U . S. C iti z e n sh ip a n d Im m ig ra tio n S e rv ice s F o rm I-1 3 0 “ P e tit io n fo r A lien R e lativ e ” to r egul ar i ze the i m m i gr at i on s t atus of Padi l l a- Pl anca r t e’ s fami l y . T he pet i t i on w as appr oved w i th a pr i or i tydat e of A pr i l 24, 2001. Soon t her eaf t er , on oraboutM ay 15, 2001, Padi l l a- Pl anca r t e i l l egal l yr eent er ed thi s countryand l i ved her e for s e v e ra l yea rs . A ft erhe mar r i ed a U . S. ci t i zen i n J anuary2004, hi s w i fe f i l ed a s econd F o rm I-13 0 p eti ti o n o n h is be h alf. O n Ju n e 7 , 2 0 0 5 , the s am e d ayh is w ife’s pet i t i on w as appr oved, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( “D H S”) pl ace d Padi l l a- Pl anca r t e i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs , char gi ng hi m as an al i en pr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es w i thoutbei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed and a s an al i en s eeki ng admi s s i on t o the U ni t ed St at es w i thi n t en y ear s of r emoval . H i s s econd r emoval hear i ng,- 3-

hel d J une 16, 2005, w as a gr oup pr ocee di ng. Padi l l a- Pl anca r t e, appea r i ng w i thout couns el , conce ded thathe w as r emovabl e as char ged, t ol d the I J thathe di d not w is h to a p p ly fo r r e lie f f ro m re m o v a l, b u t r e s e rv e d h is ri g h t to a p p e a l. A ccor di ngl y , the I J or der ed hi m r emoved t o M exi co, s t ay i ng the r emoval pendi ng a n a p p e a l . Hi s wi fe p o s t e d a b o n d a n d P a d i l l a - P l a n c a r t e wa s r e l e a s e d f r o m D HS c u sto d y . P a d ill a -P lan c a rte , h o w e v e r, d id n o t ap p e a l. H e a lleg e s th a t, i n h is confus i on att he r emoval hear i ng, he bel i eved pa ym entof the bond nul l i fi ed the or derof r emoval , s uch thathe coul d cont es thi s r emovabi l i tyi n another p ro c e e d in g . L a te r, h e o b ta in e d c o u n s e l fo r t h is p u rp o s e . C ouns el forPadi l l a- Pl anca r t e r evi ew ed the r ecor d, det erm i ned that P a d illa -P la n c a rt e ’s a p p e a l tim e h a d e x p ir e d , a n d file d a m o tio n to re o p e n th e c a s e . In h is m o ti o n , P ad il la-P lanc arte co n ce d ed h e w as in ad m issi b le, an d there fo re in e lig ib le to a dju st h is s tatu s u n les s a w a iv e r o f in a d m iss ib ili tyw a s a v a ilab le to h im . H e a rgu ed that h e w as e li g ible fo r a w aive r ba sed o n the a p p rov ed F o rm I - 130 pet i t i ons . U pon cons i der at i on of hi s m ot i on, the I J det erm i ned that Padi l l a- Pl anca r t e’ s i l l egal r eentr yaft err emoval r ender ed hi m i nel i gi bl e for adj us t m entof s t atus and ent er ed an or derdeny i ng the mot i on t o r eopen on Sept ember6, 2005. Padi l l a- Pl anca r t e then appe al ed t o the B I A , w hi ch affi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on.I n per t i nentpart , § 1255( i ) ( 1) pr ovi des t hatan al i en phy s i cal l ypr es enti n the 1 U ni t ed St at es , w ho ent er ed w i thouti ns pect i on, m ayappl yforadj us t m entof s t atus upon paym entof $1, 000 i f the al i en i s a bene fi ci aryof a Form I - 130 pet i t i on fi l ed on orbefor e A pr i l 30, 2001 and w as phy s i cal l ypr es enti n the U ni t ed St at es on D ece m ber21, 2000. Sect i on 1182( a) ( 9) ( C ) ( i ) , w hi ch appl i es t o “[a ] l i ens unl aw ful l ypr es entaft er 2 p re v io u s im m ig ra tio n v io latio n s,” p ro v id e s th a t, i n g e n e ra l: A nyal i en w ho– (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 4- II Padi l l a- Pl anca r t e cha l l enges t he deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen, as s er t i ng th a t h is w ife ’s a p p ro v e d F o rm I-1 3 0 p e tit io n , co u p led w ith th e p rio rityd a te o f h is uncl e’ s ear l i erpet i t i on, m ake hi m el i gi bl e t o adj us thi s s t atus t o l aw ful perm anent r es i dentunderthe Legal I m m i gr at i on Fam i l yE qui tyA ct( “LIFE A ct ”) , codi fi ed at 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 (i)(1 ). T h is c o u rt re v iew s th e B IA ’s d e c isio n o n a m o tio n to 1 r eopen foran abus e of di s cr et i on, and w i l l r ever s e onl yi f the dec i s i on “pr ovi des n o ra tio n a l ex p lan a tio n , ine x p lica b lyd e p a rts f ro m e sta b lish e d p o licie s, is d e v o id of anyr eas oni ng, orcont ai ns onl ys um m aryorconcl us or ys t at ement s . ” I nfanz on v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 6 F . 3 d 1 3 5 9 , 1 3 6 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). “G ener al l y , a pr evi ous l yr emoved al i en w ho i l l egal l yr e- ent er s t he U ni t ed St at es i s perm anent l yi nadmi s s i bl e t o the U ni t ed St at es . . . and ther efor e not el i gi bl e foradj us t m entof s t atus under[the LIFE A ct ] . ” Fernandez - V ar gas v. A sh c ro f t, 39 4 F .3 d 8 8 1 , 8 8 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (c iti n g B e rru m -G a rc ia v . C o m fo rt, 3 9 0 F . 3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 6 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )); see also 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (a)(9)(C )(i ). 2( . . . cont i nued)

2 (I) h a s b e e n u n law f u llyp re se n t in th e U n ited S tate s fo r a n a g g re g a te per i od of m or e than 1 y ear , or ( I I ) has been or der ed r emoved unders ect i on 1225( b) ( 1) of thi s t i t l e, s e c t i o n 1 2 2 9 a o f

th i s t i t l e , o ra n yo th e rp r o v i s i o n o f l a w, and w ho ent er s orat t empt s t o r eent erthe U ni t ed St at es w i thoutbei ng admi t t ed i s i nadmi s s i bl e.

- 5- “[A ] w ai verof thi s perm anenti nadmi s s i bi l i tyi s avai l abl e, ” butthe “w ai verm ay onl ybe s oughtfol l ow i ng the compl et i on of an unw ai vabl e t en- y earper i od out s i de o f th e U n ite d S ta te s .” F e rn a n d e z -V a rg a s , 3 9 4 F .3 d a t 8 8 5 . N othi ng i n the LIFE A cts uper cede s the s t atut or ybarpl ace d on a r emoved al i en’s appli cat i on for adjustm ent of st atus. P adil l a-C al dera v. G on zal es, 4 5 3 F .3 d 1 2 3 7 , 1 2 4 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). “T h e c las s o f a lien s w h o v io late § 1182( a) ( 9) ( C ) ( i ) ( I I ) ar e nott he type of i l l egal entr ant s m eantt o be cove r ed by [ th e L IF E A c t] , th o s e ille g a l e n tr a n ts w h o . . . o th e rw is e p la y e d b yth e ru le s . I ns t ead, theyar e i l l egal entr ant s w ho vi ol at e di r ectcourtor der s . ” I d. ( quot at i on o m itt e d ). P lain ly , P a d ill a -P lan c a rte fa lls u n d e r th e sta tu to ryp ro sc rip tio n a n d is th e re fo re in e lig ib le fo r a dju s tm e n t o f s ta tu s . M o reo v er, co n tr aryto P ad il la-P lanc arte’s co n tention s, an ap p rov ed F o rm I - 130 pet i t i on cannotcur e hi s unl aw ful r eentry . A s ucce s s ful For m I - 130 pet i t i on i s s i m pl y“one pr er equi s i t e thatha[s ] t o be s at i s fi ed befor e [a n al i en ca n] appl yfor perm anentr es i dence oradj us t m entof s t atus . ” U ni t ed St at es v. A t andi , 376 F. 3d 1186, 1187 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . I tdoes notbardeni al of adj us t m entof s t atus orF o r th e first tim e o n a p p e a l, P a d ill a -P lan c a rte a rg u e s in th e a ltern a tiv e th a t h e is 3 e lig ib le fo r a w a iv e r o f in a d m iss ib ili tyu n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (a )(9 )(A )(iii) beca us e hi s uncl e’ s For m I - 130 pet i t i on w as appr oved befor e he r eent er ed the U n ited S tate s. T h is c o n ten tio n is w ith o u t m e rit an d c a n n o t o v e rc o m e th e p lain lan g u a g e o f

§ 1 1 8 2 (a )(9 )(A )(iii). T h a t se c tio n , w h ich p ro v id e s a n e x c e p tio n to the i nadmi s s i bi l i tyof “[ c] ert ai n al i ens pr evi ous l yr emoved, ” r equi r es t hatany gr antof a w ai verappl i cat i on byt he A t t or neyG ener al occur“pr i ort o the dat e of the al i en’ s r eembar kat i on ata pl ace out s i de the U ni t ed St at es oratt empt t o be a d m itte d f

ro m fo re ig n c o n tig u o u s te rr ito ry.”

- 6- admi s s i bi l i tyon anyl egi t i m at e gr ound. See Ferryv. G onzal es , 457 F. 3d 1117, 1122- 23 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( not i ng thatD H S appr oved pet i t i oner ’ s For m I - 130, but deni ed admi s s i bi l i tyon othergr ounds ) ; T chui nga v. G onzal es , 454 F. 3d 54, 58 ( 1s tC i r . 2006) ( des cr i bi ng an I J ’ s deni al of pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on foradj us t m ent o f status su b seq u en t t o an ap p rov ed F o rm I-13 0 p eti ti o n ). M or eover , w e r ej ectanycont ent i on thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on by fai l i ng t o di s cus s the I J ’ s r el i ance on an I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ctpr ovi s i on thatw as notchar ged i n the N ot i ce t o A ppear . A l though w e ac know l edge Padi l l a- Pl anca r t e’ s ar gum entconce rni ng the conf us i ng natur e of hi s i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs , w e conc l ude thathe has no fac tual orl egal bas i s forr el i ef f r om re m o v a l. 3 III T he judgm ent of the B IA i s AFF I RM ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge