UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

VAEA JUNIOR LASITANI, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States 

Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

------------------------------ 

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION 

LAWYERS ASSOCIATION; 

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION 

COUNCIL, 

 Amici Curiae. 

No. 14-9581 

(Petition for Review)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, LUCERO and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 16, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

 

 Vaea Junior Lasitani, a native and citizen of New Zealand, was ordered 

removed based on his Utah state convictions for firearms violations and assault. He 

does not challenge his removability; rather, he asserts that he is eligible for 

discretionary consideration for waiver of inadmissibility. This circuit recently 

resolved this issue of first impression in favor of Mr. Lasitani’s position. 

Medina-Rosales v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1140, 1145 (10th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we 

grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. 

 Mr. Lasitani was admitted to the United States in 1995. On September 25, 

2007, he adjusted his status to that of a legal permanent resident (LPR). Thereafter, 

in October of 2010, he was convicted of three Utah felony counts, which he admits 

qualify as an aggravated felony, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). The 

Department of Homeland Security instituted removal proceedings. Conceding 

removability, Mr. Lasitani filed applications for a waiver of inadmissibility and for 

cancellation of removal. His wife, a United States citizen, filed an I-130 relative 

petition on his behalf, which, if granted, would make a visa immediately available to 

him. He claimed he was eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(h). 

 In agency removal proceedings, the Board of Immigration Appeals determined 

that Mr. Lasitani was ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility because he had been 

convicted of an aggravated felony after acquiring LPR status. Mr. Lasitani seeks 

review, arguing that because he had become an LPR after his arrival in the United 
- 3 - 

States and before he was convicted of an aggravated felony, he is eligible for a 

waiver of inadmissibility. 

 The relevant provision of § 1182(h) is as follows: “No waiver shall be granted 

under this subsection in the case of an alien who has previously been admitted to the 

United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if . . . since the 

date of such admission the alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony . . . .” In 

Medina-Rosales, this court held that under the plain language of the statute, “only 

persons who obtained LPR status before or when they entered the United States are 

barred from seeking a waiver under § 1182(h).” 778 F.3d at 1145. Because 

Mr. Lasitani obtained LPR status after he entered the United States, he “is eligible for 

discretionary consideration for waiver of inadmissibility under § 1182(h).” Id. at 

1146. Accordingly, the petition for review is granted and the case is remanded for 

further proceedings. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Mary Beck Briscoe 

 Chief Judge