[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-13105

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A091-735-587

JOSE DAVID ZECENA OSORIO, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(May 31, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-13105 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Jose Davis Zecena Osorio petitions for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of 

his motion to terminate removal proceedings. On petition for review, Zecena 

Osorio argues that the BIA erred in determining that he was properly charged as 

inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), because he lawfully entered into the United States holding

temporary-resident status, which meant that he had been admitted or paroled. 

Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we deny Zecena Osorio’s 

petition. 

We review legal determinations of the BIA and the IJ de novo. Ayala v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). We review the BIA’s 

decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. 

Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007). When the BIA explicitly 

agrees with the findings of the IJ, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the 

IJ as to those issues. Ayala, 605 F.3d at 948. We defer to the Department of 

Homeland Security’s (“DHS’s”) “interpretation of its own regulations unless its 

interpretation is ‘plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” Assa’ad 

v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Auer v. Robbins, 

519 U.S. 452, 461, 117 S. Ct. 905, 911, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1997)). 

Case: 15-13105 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Page: 2 of 6 
3

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 

(“IIRIRA”) provides for two bases for removability including grounds of 

inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 and grounds of deportability under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1227, which governs the removal of aliens admitted to the United States. 

Dormescar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 690 F.3d 1258, 1260–61 (11th Cir. 2012). Prior to 

the adoption of IIRIRA, “there was a fundamental distinction between excludable 

aliens,” who sought admission but had not yet achieved it, “and deportable aliens,”

who had succeeded in either legally or illegally entering the country. Id. at 1260. 

Under IIRIRA, an alien may now be considered inadmissible for being in the 

United States without being admitted or paroled. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). 

When an alien is charged with inadmissibility, he has the burden of proving that he 

is “‘clearly and beyond doubt’” entitled to admission and that he is not 

inadmissible under any ground enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1182. Garces v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 1337, 1345–46 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(2)(A)). 

The distinction between inadmissibility and deportability turns on the alien’s 

“status” rather than his physical location. Poveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 692 F.3d 

1168, 1174–75 (11th Cir. 2012). An alien in the United States who has been 

admitted is subject to deportability grounds for removability, while an alien who 

has not been, regardless of his location, is subject to inadmissibility grounds. Id. at 

Case: 15-13105 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Page: 3 of 6 
4

1175. An “admission” is defined as “the lawful entry of [an] alien into the United 

States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(13)(A). 

The Immigration Reform Control Act (“IRCA”) provides that an alien can 

adjust his status to that of “lawfully admitted for temporary residence” if he can 

establish that he entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and has resided 

in the United States continuously since such date. 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(a)(2)(A); see

also 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2 (detailing the process to apply for temporary-resident 

status). An alien who is provided lawful temporary-resident status under IRCA 

can then have his status adjusted to “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” if 

he meets certain requirements, including the demonstration of certain basic 

citizenship skills. 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(b). During the period of time that an alien 

receives lawful temporary-resident status, he is permitted to return to the United 

States after brief and casual trips abroad, which reflect an intention on the part of 

the alien to achieve lawful permanent-resident status. 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(b)(3)(A); 

see 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(m)(2) (providing that an alien whose application for 

temporary-resident status has been approved may be admitted to the United States 

as a returning temporary resident if certain conditions are met). The Attorney 

General shall terminate an alien’s temporary-resident status if it appears that the 

alien in question was not eligible for such status. 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(b)(2). 

Case: 15-13105 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Page: 4 of 6 
5

Termination of the status of an alien previously adjusted to lawful temporary 

resident “shall act to return such alien to the unlawful status held prior to the 

adjustment.” 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u)(4). 

We held in the pre-IIRIRA context that the plain language of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1255a(b)(3)(A), which allows temporary residents to travel abroad for brief and 

casual trips, does not affect the definition of “entry” for purposes of determining 

whether a legalization applicant should be placed in exclusion or deportation 

proceedings. See Assa’ad, 332 F.3d at 1336, 1340–41 (concluding that it was 

appropriate for an alien who entered the United States while her legalization 

application was pending and without travel documents to be placed in exclusion 

rather than deportation proceedings when her parole was subsequently terminated). 

Moreover, we have noted that an alien holding permanent-resident status who 

returns from abroad is not regarded as seeking an “admission” each time he reenters the United States. Poveda, 692 F.3d at 1179. 

Accordingly, the BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s denial of Zecena 

Osorio’s motion to terminate his removal proceedings. In particular, the BIA did 

not err in determining that Zecena Osorio was properly charged as inadmissible 

because he reverted back to his prior unlawful status of entry without inspection at 

the time that his status as a temporary resident was terminated under the plain 

language of 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u)(4). Moreover, Zecena Osorio’s lawful reentry 

Case: 15-13105 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Page: 5 of 6 
6

into the United States in 1996 is irrelevant to the determination of whether he is 

subject to charges of inadmissibility because he was able to lawfully reenter at the 

time based on his temporary-resident status, which was subsequently terminated. 

PETITION DENIED. 

Case: 15-13105 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Page: 6 of 6