07
- 31 94
- ag

M ora v. M uk as ey UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T August Term 2007 Argued: J une 2, 2008 Dec ided: Dec ember 16, 2008
Docke t No. 07-3194-a g

_____________________________________ JUANMO RAand

GU I L L ERM I

NAMO RA Pe tit ion e rs , -v.- MI CHAEL

B. MUK ASEY, United States Attorney

Gene ral, United States De partment of Justice, Respondent
.

_____________________________________ Be fore : McLAUGHL I N, SACK, L I VI

NGSTON, Circuit Judges
. Petition for reviewof a B oard of I mmigration Appeals dec ision affirmingan Immigration J udg e’s de nial of applications for adjustment of status. Denied. ROBERT C. ROSS , ESQ., West Have n, CT, for Pe tit ion e rs . BRI ENA L . STRI PPOL I(Jennifer L ightbody , o n the brief ), Offic e of I m migr ation L itigation, United States De partment of Jus tice, for J eff

rey S. Buc holtz , ActingAssistant Attorney Gene ral, United States De p ar tment of J ustice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent
.2

L I VI NGSTON, Circuit Judge : Petitioners J uan and Guillermina Mora, citizens of Mexi co, petition f or revie w of a

J une 26, 2007 decision of the B oard of I mmigration Appea ls (“B I A”) aff irming the May

2, 2006 decision of I mmigration J udg e (“ I J ”) Micha el Straus deny ing the ir appli cations for adjustment of status and order ing them to de part the country voluntarily by a specifie d date, or else be come subjec t to a final order of re moval. The pe tition raises the question whether aliens who a

re ina dmissibl e under

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a )(9) (C)(i)( I ) beca use they enter ed the United States unla wfully afte r ac cruingmore than a year

of prior unla

wful pre sence are fore closed fr om adjusting their status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) on the basis of approve d immigra nt visa applications. The BIA deter mined in In re Briones , 24 I . & N . Dec . 355 (B I A 2007), that they are . Be cause we c oncl u d e t h at t he Briones decision int e rp re te d ambi g uo us pr ov isi on s o f t he imm ig ra

tio n la ws in a re a so na

ble wa y , w e mus t de fe r t o it pursuant to Chevron U.S.A., I nc. v. Natural Resource

s Defense Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and ther efor e deny

the petition.

BACK GR OUND J uan and Guillermina Mora e ntere d the United States u n l awfully in 1994 and 1999 respe ctively . They left the country toge ther for a trip to T lapana la, Mexi co in A pril 2002, g ot married there , and re enter ed the United States w ithout ins pection a month later
. In August 2005, the Moras we re se rved w ith Notices to Appea r ch ar gi n g them with being
remova ble under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6) (A)( i) bec ause the y enter ed t h e countr

y without being admitted or par oled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (6)( A)(i) (“A n alien present i n the Unit ed S tates without being admitted or parole d, or who arr ives in the United States at any time or place other than as desig nated by

the Attorney

Gene ral, is inadmissible.”). The Moras a ppeared b ef

o re an I J and3

a dmi tt e d th e f

a c tu a l a ll e g a ti o n s in th e N o ti c e s to Ap p e ar . Sp e c if ic a ll y , Ju an M o r a a dmitted in an aff idavit that he unlawf

ully enter ed the country in 1994, left for Mexi co in 2002, and then r eturne d
a month l a te r, e nte ri ngun lawf ull y fo r a se c on d ti me . B a se d on

an a pp ro ve d w or

ke r v isa pe tit ion in J uan’s name with a priority date of April 27, 2001, howeve r, J uan moved to adjust his st atus to that of an a lie n l awfully

admitted for pe rmane nt residenc e, and Guillermina moved for derivative adjustment of status as J uan’s wife. I n the alternative, t he Moras soug ht canc ellation of removal or voluntary depar ture. The I J found t h at J uan wa s inadmissibl e under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9) (B ) bec ause he had depar ted the United States for Me x ico and r eente red the country unlawfully

in 2002. See 8 U .S. C. § 1182(a) (9)( B) (i)(I I ) (r ender ing ina dmissibl e an al i en wh o “has be en unlawf ully prese nt in the United States for one y ear or more, a

nd who ag ain see ks adm i s s i o n wi thin 10 y ear s of the date of such alien’ s depar

ture or r emoval from the United States”). B ased upon this conc lusion, the I J further de te rm ine d th a t Juan w a s in e lig ibl e fo r adj ustme nt o f s tatus on the ba sis of

the a pp ro ve d v isa application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (pe rmitting bene ficiar ies of wor ker visas to a

pply for a djustment of sta tu s , b u t a l l o w i n g A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l t o g r an t r e l i e f o n l y t o a l i e n s w h o ar e a dm i s s i b l e ) . A s a
re s u l t , th e I J d e n i e d

th e M o r a s ’ a

p p l i c a t i o n s f

o r a d j u s t m e n to f

s t a tu s . H e a l s o r e

j e c t e d the ir applications for canc ellation of removal, but g rante d their re quest for voluntar y depar ture, g iving the Moras until J uly

3, 2006 to depar

t the country , afte r which time they would become subject to a fina l
or de r o f r e mov a l. T h e M o ra s ap p ea l edt o t h e B I A fr o m th e de n i al o f a d j u s t m en to f s t at u s , b u td i d n o tch al l en ge the de nia l of

c anc e llatio n o f r e mov a l. T he B I A a do pte d an d af fi rm e d the I J’s de c isi on . Alth ou g h it deter mined that J uan was more proper ly deeme d inadmissible under sec tion 1182(a)( 9)(C)( i)(I ), as opposed to section 1182(a )(9) (B ), bec ause he enter ed the United States w ithou t i n spection af terAdmittedly , the B I A’s opinion does not expli citly indicate whe ther the B oard intende d 1 to modify the I J ’s opinion or mere ly supplement it by

providing an alter

native g round for

the de c isi on . O ur

sta nd ard of re vie w whe re the B I A a do pts and su pp le me nts an I J opin ion

is, howeve r, nea

rly identical to the one he re, see M ing Xia Chen v. BIA , 435 F.3d 141, 144 ( 2d Cir. 2006) (“ When the BIA adopts the de cision of the I J and supplements the I J ' s decision, we r eview the dec ision of the I J as supplemented by the B I A.”) , and in the cir cumstance s of this case our decision would not cha

ng e if we adopted this alternative interpre tation of the B I A’s opinion. 4 acc ruing more than a y ear of prior unla

wful pre sence , see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9) (C)(i)( I ) (r ender ing inadmissible a

ny alien who “has been unlawfully prese nt in the United States for a n ag g reg ate pe riod of more tha

n 1 y ea r . . . and who e nters or attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted”), the BIA ag ree d with the I J that J uan Mora ’s in ad m i s s i bility made him inelig ible for
a dju stm e nt o f status on

the ba sis of

the a pp ro ve d v isa

a pp lic a tio n. I t th e re fo re dis mis se d th e a pp e a l. Havingnow bec ome subj ec t t o a fina l order of remova l, see Thapa v. G onzalez , 460 F.3d 323, 3 3 3 (2d Cir. 2006) (“ [A] n order of voluntary

depar ture that include s an alter nate or der of
remova l is a final orde r subject to judicial re view.”) , the M o ra s p et i t i o n for r eview of the B I A’s de c isi on de nyingthe ir

a pp lic a tio ns fo r a dju stm e nt o f s tatus
.

DI SCU SSIO N Be cause the B I A adopted a nd modified the I J ’s decision, we revie w the dec ision of the I J as modified by

the B I A. Xue Hong Y

ang v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 ( 2d Cir. 2005). 1 Whil e fa ctual findings are reviewed for subst antial evidence, questions of law a nd applications of law to undisputed fac t are revie wed de novo
. Chambers v. Office of Chief Counsel , 494 F.3d 274, 277 (2d Cir. 2007). Pursuant to Chevron , howeve r, we defe r to the B I A’s int erpr etation of
ambi g uo us pr ov isi on s of the imm ig ratio n law s, un le ss thi s inte rp re tatio n is “ ‘a rb itr ary , c a

pr ic iou s, or manife stly

contr ary to the statute,’” Emokah v . Mukase y , 523 F.3d 110, 116 ( 2d Cir. 2008) (q u o t i n g Chevron , 4 67 U. S. at 84 4) ; see also D elgado v. Muk asey , 516 F.3d 65, 68 ( 2d Cir. 2008)5

( “ We
. . . a ccor d C

h ev r on defe renc e to dec isions of the [BI A] int erpr eting the immigration statutes.”). Un de r 8 U. S.C. § 1 25 5( i) , a n al ien wh o h a s e nte re d th e c ountr y un lawf ull y may a pp ly to adjust his im m i gra tion status to t hat of a lawful pe rmane nt resident in ce rtain circ umstances. See Delgado , 5 16 F .3 d at 69 . Pa ra g ra ph(1 ) o f t

hat se c tio n p ro vid e s in

re le va nt p art that: [A] n alien phy sically

prese nt in the U n i t ed S t ates . . . who . . . entere d the United States without inspection[ ,] who is t he bene fi ci ar y . . . of . . . a pe tition for c la ssi fi c a tio n und e r [8 U. S.C. § 1 15 4 ( pr ov idi ng , amon g oth e r t hin g s, fo r w or

ke r v isa petitions)] that was filed w ith the A ttorney Gene ral on or be fore April 30, 2001[,] and . . . who, in the ca se of a benef iciary of a petition for classification . . . that wa s filed afte r January

14, 1998, is phy sically

prese nt in the United States on D ec ember 21, 20 00
. . . ma

y a pp ly to t he Attor ne y Ge ne ra l f or the a dju stm e nt o f h is o r h e r s tatus to that of an a lien lawfully

admitted for pe rmane nt residenc e. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(1). Para g raph (2), howeve r, allows the Attorney Gene ral to “a djust the status of the alien to that of a

n alien lawf

ully admitted for pe rmane nt residenc e” only if, inte r a lia , “the a lien is eligible to re ceive an immigr ant visa and is a dm iss ible to the United State s fo r p er m anent residenc e,” 8 U .S.C. § 1255(i)(2) (e mphasis added) . To qualify for a djus tme nt of status under se ction 1255(i), ther efor e, an a lien who has enter ed the country unlawfully must be “othe rwise ‘ admissible’ to the United States.” Delgado , 516 F.3d at 69 (quoting 8 U .S.C. § 1255(i)(2)(A) ). Whether an alien is admissible is deter mined by ref

ere nce to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) . Acc ording to para g raph (6)(A) (i) of that section, “[ a]n alien prese nt in the United States without being a dmitted or par oled, or who arr ives in the United States at any time or place other than a s desig nated by the Attorn ey Ge nera l, is inadmiss ible.” 8 U .S. C. § 11 82 (a )( 6) (A )( i) . In o the r w or ds , a ny a lie n w ho is prese nt in the country

afte r havingenter ed unlawf ully is inadmissi ble. Addi t i onally , para g raph (9 )( C) (i ) e sta

bli sh e s tw o mo re sp e c if

ic pr oh ibi tio ns , s tatin g , in re le va nt p art , th a t:6

Any alien who – (I ) has be en unlawfully prese nt in the United States for an ag g reg ate pe riod of more tha

n 1 y ear , or (I I ) has be en orde red r emoved . . .,
and wh o e nte rs or

a tte mpt s to re e nte r t

he Un ite d St a te s w ith out be inga dmi tte d is inadmissible. 8 U.S
. C . § 1182(a) (9)( C)(i). The introductory languag e to sec tion 1182(a), howe ver, note s that

“ [e] xce pt as otherwise provided in this chapter , a lie ns wh o a re ina dmi ssi ble
. . . a

re ine lig ibl e to
re c e ive vis a s and

ine lig ibl e to b e a dmi tte d to the Un ite d St a te s. ” 8 U.S .C
. § 1182 (a ) ( e mph a sis
a dd e d) . T his langua g e a c ts a s a “ savin g s c la

us e ,” a llo wi ng adm issio n o f o the rw ise ina dmi ssi ble aliens whe re the statute so provides. Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1237, 1241 ( 10th Cir. 2005). The Mora s conce de that they satisfy the cr i teria f

or inadmissibili ty

set forth in sec tion 1182(a) (9)( C)(i)(I ) bec ause the y have be en unlawf

ully prese nt in the United States for more than one y ear and they depar ted and r eente red the country in connec ti o n wi t h their marr iag e in Mexico. Be cause section 1255(i) a llows the Attorney Gene ral to adjust t he status of a n alien only

if that alien is ad m i s s i ble, it would appea r the Mora s are not entitled to section 1255(i) re lief. B ut the Moras argue that sec tion 1255(i) cannot r easona bly be re ad to fore close re lief to all aliens who a

re inadmissible under sec tion 1182(a). Sec tion 1255(i), specify ing the circ umstances in which a liens wh o have e nte re d the c ountr y un lawf ull y may a

pp ly to ad jus t the ir status , a pp lie s on ly

to aliens who
are “ phy sic a lly

pr esen t in the Unit e d St a te s” and “ e nte re d .
. . wi tho ut i ns pe c tio n. ” 8 U .S. C. § 1 25 5( i) (1 ). Se c tio n 118 2( a )( 6) (A )( i) , how e ve r, re nd e rs a phy sic a lly pr e se nt al ie n ina dmi ssi ble if he ente red the country

unlawfully . As a re sult, “the plain languag e of the stat u t e s ee ms to make7

‘entry without inspection’ both a qualifying a nd a disqualifying c ondition for a djustment of status.” Briones , 2 4 I . & N. De c . at 36 2. Ind e e d, “ [i]f a ll a lie ns un lawf ull y pr e se nt ar e ina dmi ssi ble a s a re su lt of § 1182(a ), and admissibili ty is a condition for § 1255(i)(2) (A) relief, then no one would ever be elig ible under § 1255( i)(2)( A).” Ramirez-Canales v. M ukasey , 517 F.3d 904, 908 ( 6th Cir. 2008). T h e qu e s t i o nt h e r e f

o r e ar i s e s h o ws e c t i o n1 2 5 5 ( i ) s h o u l d b e c o n s tr u e d s o a s n o tt o r e n d e r

i ta nu l l i ty. Th a t is , c an s e c tio n 1 25 5( i) be re a d a s an i mp li cit w a ive r o f c e rt a in gro un ds fo r i na dmi ssi bil ity in
a c c or da nc e wi th t he savin g s c la

us e of se c tio n 1 18 2( a ), and

if so , w hic h o ne s? As the B I A has noted, this problem did not ex ist before the passag e of the I lleg al I mmigration Reform a nd I mmigra

nt Responsibi l i t y Ac t of 1996 (“I I RI RA”), Pub. L . No. 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546. See B riones , 24 I
. & N. Dec
. at 362-63

. I n the pre -I I RI RA reg ime, aliens who e ntere d the country

without inspect i o n af

t erhavingbeen de ported c ould be dee med “inadmissible” dependingon the circ umstances, a nd thus barre d from adjusting their status under sec tion 1255(i). B ut a lie ns wh o o the rw ise ha d e nte re d th e c ountr y wi tho ut ins pe c tio n—

wh e the r o nc e or

on mul tip le
occa sions—were deeme d “depor table,” not “inadmissible,” and so wer e not barred f rom adjusting their status under se ction 1255(i). Se e id . I I RI RA, howeve r, provide d fo r t he first time that aliens who enter ed the country without having been inspected or parole d should be deeme d “inadmissible.” SeeI I RI RA§ 3 01 (c )( 1) , 1 10 Stat. 3 00 9- 57 8; Briones , 24 I
. & N. Dec
. at 363. In addition, it added wh a t is no w s e c tio n 1 18 2( a )( 9) (C ) t o d e fi ne a ne w an d narr ow e r cl a ss of ina dmi ssi ble a lie ns —th os e who enter ed the c ountry

unlawfully

on more than one occa sion. See I I RI RA § 30 1( b) (1 ), 11 0 St a t. 30 09 -5 76 to - 57 8; Briones , 24 I . & N . Dec . at 363. Shortly befor e I I RI RA’s eff

ective date, the for

mer Immigration and Natura liz ation Service (“I NS”) issued a memorandum pertaining to the interplay betwee n the new se ction 1182(a) (6)( A)(i) ,8

providing that a phy sically prese nt alien is inadmissibl e if he enter ed the c o u n t ry unlawfully , and section 1255(i), spe cifying the circ umstances in which phy sically prese nt aliens who ente red unlawfully might adjust their status. See Me mor and um fr om David Ma

rt in, Ge ne ra l Co un se l, I

NS, to M ic h a e l L
. A y

te s , A s s is ta

n t C o mm ' r , O f

f ic e o f B e n e f it s , I N S ( F e b
. 1 9 , 1 9 97), r ep r i n t ed in 74 Interpre ter Relea ses 516-22 (1997 ) [ h er ei nafte r I NS Memo]. The I

NS pointed to the so-called “savin gs cl ause” of sec tion 1182(a), see id. at 518-19, whic h, as noted a bove, states that the cate g ories of aliens enumer ated in that se ction are inadmissible “[ e ] x c e pt a s o the rwi

sepr ov ide d in this chapter ,” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (empha sis added). The I NS interprete d section 1255(i)(1) (A)( i) as fa lli ngwi thi n th e sc op e of the savin g s c la

us e , a nd thu s a s an im

pli c it w a ive r o f the a dmi ssi bil ity prer equisite in the case of aliens who are inadmissible unde r sectio n 1 1 8 2 (a )(6)(A)( i). See I NS Memo at 518-22. The I NS’s interpre tation of the saving s clause w ent some distance toward r esolving the tension betwee n section 1255(i), spe cifying that phy sically prese nt aliens who ente red the country illega lly may in cer tain circ umstances a

pply for a djustment of status, provided they are admissible, and sec tion 1182(a)( 6)(A) (i ), providing that those who e nter the c ountry unlawfully

are not
a dmi ssi ble . T his int e rp re tatio n, ho we ve r, did no t re so lve a ll q ue sti on s c on c e rn ingthe re latio ns hip betwee n sections 1255(i) a nd 1182(a) . Wh il e s e c ti o n

1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A ) ( i) applies g ener ally to aliens who
are prese nt unlawfully , section 1182(a )(9 )( C ) ap plies more spec ifically to aliens who ar e pre sent
un l aw f u l l y and who have repe atedly violated the immigration law s – either by beingprese nt for an ag g reg ate pe riod of over

one y ear and ef fec ting or attempting to e ffe ct an e ntry or by enter ing or attempting to e nter the U nited States af t er having been or dere d remove d. The que stion remains whether these more specific g rounds for ina dmissibi lity should be deeme d implicitl y “wa ived” by section 1255(i) a s well.9

In Delgado v. M

ukasey , 5 16 F .3 d 6 5 ( 2d

Cir . 2 00 8) , w e re c ent ly resol ve d th is i ssu e wi th respe ct to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9) (C)(i)( I I ), which makes i nadmissible “[a]ny alien who
. . . has bee n order ed re moved
. . . an d who enter s or attempts to ree nter the United States without being
a dmi tte d. ” Th e pe tit ion e r the re a rgue d that sh e wa s e lig ibl e fo r a dju stm e nt o f s tatus be c a us e “ by its express l an gu ag e, sec tion 1255(i) is available to a liens who enter the United States without inspection . . . [thus indicating that] t he adjustment of status pr ovision c ures inadmissibil ity pursuant to § 1182(a)( 9)(C)( i)(I I ).” Delgado , 516 F.3d at 70 (citation, internal quo ta ti o n ma r k s , a nd alterations omitted). We r ejec ted this contention and af forde d Chevron defe renc e to the B I A’s dete rmination in In reTorre

s- Ga rc ia , 23 I . & N . Dec . 866 (B I A 2006), that a n alien who is inadmissible pursuant to section 1182(a) (9)( C)(i)(I I ) is ineligible f or adjustment of status pursua nt to section 1255(i). See Delgado , 516 F.3d at 72. In rea chingour conc lusion in Delgado , we noted that the Tenth Circuit in Pa dil la- Cal de ra v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2006), and the N inth Ci rcuit in Acosta v. Gonzale s , 439 F.3d 55 0 ( 9th Cir . 2 00 6) , h e ld t hat a lie ns wh o a

re ina dmi ssi ble un de r s e c tio n 1 18 2( a )( 9) (C )( i) (I )— tho se wh o e n te r e d th e c o un tr

y un la w f u ll y mo r e th an o n c e , b u t w h o n e v e r w e r e s u b je c t to orders of
remova l—are elig ible for se ction 1255(i) re lief. See D elgado , 516 F.3d at 70-71. We distinguished P a di l la - Calde ra and Ac os ta primarily on the g round that the a liens in those case s ree ntere d the country illega lly afte r havingbeen unlawfully prese nt in the United States for more than one year , but had not done so afte r having been r emoved, a s had the pe titioner in Delgado
. See id. at 71. That is, we ind ic a te d th at su

bc la us e s ( I ) a nd (I I ) o f se c tio n 11 82 (a )( 9) (C )( i) mig ht be tr e a te d d if fe re ntl y for pur poses of apply ing section 1255(i). W e therefor e left open the question raised he re—whether
an alien who is ina dmissibl e under section 1182(a) (9)( C)(i)(I ) may apply for se ction 1255(i) re lief.10

The Mora s rely

extensively

on Pa dil la- Cal

de ra and Ac os ta to argue, much like the petitioner in Delgado , that beca

use sec tion 1255(i) expres s l y m ak es adjustm ent of status ava ilable to aliens who ar e pre sent in the country unlawfully , it impl icitly

waives se ction 1182(a) (9)( C) ( i) ( I ) a s a g round for inadmissibility . We are not persuade d. First, Ac os ta no longe r appea rs to be g ood law. In rea ching its decision, the Acosta cou rt n o t ed that it was c onstrained by the prior Ninth Circuit ca se of Per ez- Go nz ale

z v . A sh c ro

ft , 379 F.3d 783 ( 9th Cir. 2004), o v e rr u le d b y G o n z a le

s v . D e p’t of Homeland Se c. , 5 08 F .3 d 1 22 7 ( 9th Cir . 2 00 7) , w hic h h e ld t

hat Sect io n 125 5( i) re lie f i s ava ila ble to alien s wh o are inadmissible under sec tion 1182(a)( 9)(C)( i)(I I ). Se e Ac os ta , 439 F.3d at 554 (“ P erez-Gonzalez

appea rs to control the issue now be fore us.”). Perez- Gonzalez , h o w e v e r , c a me down befor e the B I A dec ided Torre s- Ga rc ia . The Perez- Gonzalez c ourt the re fo re did

no t ba se its d e c is io no nth e a

p p li c a ti o no f

the C h evron doctrine to a

prec edential a g ency

decision. See Perez- Gonzalez , 379 F.3d at 793-94. Moreove r, in Torre s- Ga rc ia , the BI A ul timately reje cted the Ninth Circuit’s positi on t h at an alien who is inadmissi ble under section 1182(a )(9) (C)(i)( I I ) may apply for a djustment of status under sec tion 1255(i). See Torres -Ga rc ia , 23 I . & N . Dec . at 873 (“With all due respe ct, we be lieve the Ninth Circuit’s ana ly s i s . . . co n t radicts the lang uag e and purpose of

the A ct
. . . .”). A nd, the Ninth Circuit subsequently overr uled Perez- Gonzalez

and g rante d Chevron defe rence t o t h e BI A’s conc lusion in Torre s- Ga rc ia
. See G onzales , 508 F.3d at 1242. We theref

ore do not find Ac os ta persua sive. R el i an ce o nt h e T en thC i rc u i t ’s decision in Pa d i l l a - C a lde ra is equally

problematic. The court there rec og nized that the immi g ration laws a re a mbiguous a s to whether a n alien subject to section 1182(a)(9)( C)(i)(I ) may

apply to adjust his st atus under se ction 1255(i), se e Pa dil la- Cal de ra , 453 F.3d at 1241, but noted that the only ag ency g uidance on the question at the time wa s an interna l I NS
mem o randum to which the court did not owe “ rig orous def ere nce,” id. a t 12 44 . L ike the Ni nth11

Circuit in Perez- Gonzalez and Ac os ta , the Tenth Circuit soug ht to divine Congr ess’s intent without a cle ar indication of how the ag ency would resolve the question. See id. at 1241. We a re in a su bs tan tia lly

dif fe re nt p os iti on . Su

bs e qu e nt t o th e Te nth

Cir c uit ’s de c isi on

in Pa dil la- Cal

de ra and the BIA’s rejection of the Moras’ appea l in this case , the ag ency decide d In re Briones , 24 I . & N . Dec . 355 (B I A 2007), in which it dete rmined for the first t i m e i n a published op ini on that, e ve n th ou g h a lie ns wh o a re in a d mis sib le un de r s e c tio n 1 18 2( a )( 6) (A )( i) may be e lig ibl e for a dju s t m en to f s t at u s u n d er s ec t i o n1 2 5 5 (i ) b y

o p er at i o no f s ec t i o n1 1 8 2 (a )’ s s av i n gs cl au s e, al i ens who are i nadmissible also under section 1182(a) (9)( C)(i)(I ) ar e not. See Briones , 24 I
. & N . Dec . at 365, 370-71. As a result, the issue befor e us is whether , in acc ordanc e with Chevron , we must defe r t o th e B I A ’ s i n t e r

p r e t a t i o n o f th e i m m i g r a t i o n laws . S ee Delgado , 5 16 F .3 d at 68 -6 9; se e als o Ramirez-Canales , 517 F.3d at 908-09 (“A s a pre cede ntial opinion, B r i on e s is the ty pe of
c a se-by -ca se a d

ju d ic a ti o ng iv in g me an in g to amb igu o u s s tatute s to w h ic hw e o w e d e f e r e n c e . We there fore revie w the Boa rd’s interpre tation f

or rea sonablene s s [ under Chevron ].” (citation and footnote omitted)). Unlike the Tenth Circuit in P a di l la - C a lde ra , we ar e not fre e to apply our independe nt co n struction of the re levant statutes unless we first deter mine that the statutes ar e unambig uous, or t hat the ag ency ’s construc tion is unt enable
. See, e .g. , Sutherland v. Reno , 228 F.3d 171, 174 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[W ]here the rele vant s tatutory provision is sil ent or ambiguous, ‘a court may not substit ute its own construction of a statutory provision for a r easona

ble interpre tation made b y th e a dm i n i s tra t o r o f a nage n cy . ’” (q u o t i n g Chevron , 467 U.S. at 843-44))
. The statutory

languag e a t issue here is certa inly ambig uous. As previously noted, a litera l
rea ding of

section 1255(i) threatens to rende r t he st atute a nullity , and so it is nece ssary to rea d the statut e a s im

pli c itl y waivin g un lawf

ul p re se nc e a s a

g ro un d f

or ina dmi ssi bil ity

in c e rt a in circ umstances. See, e .g. , T ri chi lo v. Sec’

yof H e alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 823 F.2d 702, 706 ( 2d Cir.12

1987) (“[W] e will not interpret a statute so that some of its terms are rende red a nullity .”). B ut whether it should be rea d as waiving inadmiss ibilit y only under the g ener al sec tion 1182(a)( 6)(A) (i), or whe ther it should be re ad as wai v i n g inadmissability under the more spec ific sec tion 1182(a) (9)( C)(i)(I ) as we ll, cannot be infe rre d clea rly from the text of the immigration laws alone. See R amirez-Canales , 517 F.3d at 908 (“[I ]n resolvingthis conflict the terms of the se statutes ar e
amena ble to multiple interpre tations .
. . .”). Acc ording ly , “[t] he prec ise reach o f s ection 1255(i)(1) (A )(i) is an impli cit statutory ambig uity

the executive bra

nch is authorized to fill.” Mortera-Cruz v. Gonzales , 409 F.3d 246, 253 (5th Cir. 2005). The que stion therefor e bec omes whether the B I A’s interpr etation in Briones is “‘a rbitrar y , capr icious, or manife stly contra ry to the statute.’” See E

mokah , 5 2 3 F. 3 d

at1 1 6 (q u o t i n g Chevron , 467 U.S. at 844). I t is not. In Briones , the BI A offere d three main rea sons to interpre t section 1255(i) as allowingaliens
cover ed only

by section 1182(a )(6) (A)( i), but not ali en s covered by section 1182(a )(9) (C)(i)( I ) as
we l l , t o a p p l y f o r a d j u s t m e n to f

s t a tu s . F i r s t , i tn o t e d

th a tth e p ur

p o s e o f s e c t i o n1 1 8 2 ( a ) (9 )( C) g e ne ra lly “ wa s to sin g le out r e c idi vis t immig ratio n viol a tor s and make it mor e dif fi c ult fo r t he m to be admitted to the United S t at es af t er h avingdepar

ted.” Briones , 24 I . & N. De c . at 35 8. Th is i s evidenc ed by

the fa ct that aliens cover ed by section 1182(a )(9) (C) ar e a subse t of those cove red by section 1182(a )(6) (A)( i), thus sug g esting that Congr ess went out of i ts way to disti ng uish betwee n repe at and f

irst-time offe nders. See id. at 365-66. Acc ording to the age ncy , the inclusion of sec tion 11 82 (a )( 9) (C ) i n th e imm ig ratio n laws , a s w e ll a s o the r p ro vis ion s ta rg e tin g re c idi vis ts, “ re fl e c ts a clea r congr essional judg ment that . . . repe at offe nses ar e a matter of spe cial conc ern a nd that
rec idivist immigration violators are more culpable . . . tha n first-time offe nders.” Id. at 371.13

Second, the B I A observe d that even in the pr e-I I RI RA reg ime, cer tain aliens who re enter ed the country

afte r havingbeen de ported—those who f all u n d er t he cur

rent sec tion 1182(a) (9)( C)(i)(I I )—we re not e ligible f or adjustment of status under section 1255(i). See id. at 366- 67. Henc e, the a g ency conclude d, applying se ction 1182(a) ’s s aving s clause to se ction 1182(a) (9)( C)—which “de fine[ s ] a un ita ry g round of inadmissibility that may be pre dicated on various ty pes of c onduct,” see id. a t3 6 7 , thu s i n d i c a t i n g th a ts e c t i o n s 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 9 ) ( C ) ( i ) ( I) an d ( II) should not be treate d differ ently for pur poses of a pplying se ction 1255(i)—would make adjustment of status ava ilable to a lar ge cl as s of aliens who neve r wer e entitled to it. Id. a t3 6 6
- 6 7
. T h e B IA
su g g e ste d th a t it wo uld be “ an unw arr ante d le a p” to p re sume tha

t Co ng re ss i nte nd e d s uc h a re su lt. Id. at 367. Th i rd , t h e a gen cy

n o t edt h at“w h er e C o n gre s s h as ex t en d edel i gi b i l i ty fo r adjustm ent of status to inadmissibl e aliens ( i n other wor ds, where Congr ess has ‘othe rwise pr ovide[d] ’ within the
me anin g of

the savin g s c la

us e )” it ha s g e ne ra lly do ne so “ un ambi g uo us ly , e ith e r b y ne g a tin g c e rt a in g rounds of inadmissibilit y outrig ht or by providing for discr etionary waiver s of inadmissibili ty , or both.” Id. at 367 (a lteration in orig inal). For example, Congr ess ena cted spe cial re medial leg islation in the late 1990’s making adjustment of status relief available to cer

tain Cuban, Central Ame rica n, and Ha itian aliens who we re u n l aw fu l ly prese nt in the United States but, with certain spe cified exceptions, otherwise a dmissibl e. See id. ; see also Haitian Refug ee Immi gration F airne ss Act of 1998, Pub. L . No. 105-277, tit. I X, § 902(a ), 112 Stat. 2681-538, 2681-538 (c odified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1255 note) ; N icar aguan Adjustment and Centra l America n Relief Ac t, Pub L . No. 105- 100, tit. I I , § 202(a) , 111 Stat. 2193, 2193-94 (1997) (codifie d as amende d at 8 U.S.C. § 1255 note)
. When it realized that many of the a lien s t o whom it sought to g ive re lief mig ht be bar red f rom14

adjusting the ir status beca use of I I RI RA, Congr ess passed a mendments that expli ci t l y g ave the Attor ne y Ge ne ra l di sc re tio n to wa ive se c tio n 1 18 2( a )( 9) (C ) a s a g ro un d f or ina dmi ssi bil ity

wi th reg ard to those a liens. See B riones , 24 I . & N . D e c . at 36 8; se e als o L I FE A ct Amendments of 2000, Pub. L . No. 106-554, div. B , tit. XV, § 1505(a), ( b), 114 Stat. 276 3 A- 3 2 4 , 2 7 63A-326 to -327 (codifie d as ame nded at 8 U.S.C. § 1255 note). This, the BIA conc luded, “de monstrates that whe n Congr ess wants to make adjustment of status available to a liens despite their inadmissibilit y under section [1182(a)( 9)(C)], it knows how to do so.” Briones , 24 I
. & N. Dec . at 368. The B I A observe d also that when Cong ress pa ssed the ame ndments permitting this discre t i o nary waiver of ina dm i s s i b i l i ty , i ta l s o m o d i f i e d s e c t i o n1 2 5 5 ( i ) t o e xt e n d t h e f i l i n g d e a d l i n e f

o r qu a l i f yi n g vis a petitions. But it did not remove section 1182(a )(9) (C) as a n obstacle to a djustment of status under section 1255(i), thus showingthat Congr ess intended to for eclose aliens who re peate dly violate the immigration laws from adjusting their status. Id. We find the BIA’s re asoningnot to be arbitrary , capr icious, or manife stly contra ry to statute. As the ag ency ’s ana ly sis indicates, the languag e, structur e, and linea g e of the relevant statutes
rea sonably

g ive rise to the infere nce that Congr ess considers a liens who repe atedly enter the country unlawfully

to be more c ulpable than one-time offe nders, and there fore to be less deser ving of relief under se ction 1255(i). Henc e, we do not think it is unreasonable for the a g ency to interpret se ction 12 55 (i ) a s e xten din g re lie f t o a lie ns wh o a re ina dmi ssi ble un de r s e c tio n 118 2( a )( 6) (A )( i) , but n ot t o tho se wh o a

re ina dmi ssibl e also un de r s e c tio n 1 18 2( a )( 9) (C )( i) (I ). No ta bly , th e F if

th a nd Sixth Circuits have a

pplied Chevron to t

his int e rp re tatio n o f se c tio n 1 25 5( i) and re a c he d th e same re su lt. See Ramirez-Canales , 517 F.3d at 910 ( “We ca nnot say that the B oard’ s conclusions [in Briones ]
wer e unre asonable in light of its car eful a nd well-supporte d arguments. We theref ore ow e def

ere nce15

to t he B oa rd ’s int e rp re tatio n. ” ); Mortera-Cruz , 4 0 9 F. 3 d at2 5 5 -5 6 (gr an t i n g Chevron de fe re nc e in pre- Briones case to ag ency deter mination that alien subject to section 1182(a )(9) (C)(i) w as not el i gi b l e t o ad

j u s ts t at u s u n d er

s ec t i o n1 2 5 5 (i ))
. W e h er eb y j o i nth em i naf

fo rd i n g Chevron defe renc e to th e a g e n c y ’ s c o n c lu s io nth a t a na li e nw h o is d e te r

mi n e d to b e in a dmi s s ib le un d e r s e c ti on 1182(a) (9)( C)(i)(I ) is not eligible to a djust his s tatus pursuant to section 1255(i). B e c a u s e th e M o r a s d o n o t d is p u te th a t Ju anM o r a is in a dmi s s ib le p ur s u an t t o s e c ti on 1182(a) (9)( C)(i)(I ), and beca use the B I A’s dete rmination that such inadmissibili ty prec ludes section 1255(i) re li ef

was re asonable under Chevron , th e a g e nc y did no t e rr in d e nyingthe Mo ra s’
a pp lic a tio ns fo r a dju stm e nt o f s tatus . A c c or din g ly , th e pe tit ion fo r r e vie w i s DE NI ED
.