Pu rsuan t to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the cour t has determin ed that thi s opinio n shou ld n ot * be publ ishe d an d is not precede nt ex cept und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATES COU RT OFAPPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60119 Su m m ar y Cal endar

J A M IL A B B A S I,
P et i t i on er v.
ERI C H

. H OLD ER, J R. , U. S. ATTORN EY GE N ERA L
R esp on d en t

P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder
o f th e B o a r d o f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 78 130 989

B ef ore JO L L Y , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * I

. P e titi oner Jamil Abbasi is a nativ e and c iti zen of Paki stan who enteredthe Uni ted States in 199 6 without insp ection and without a vi sa. He has remained in the countr y since then. On June 1, 200 6, he was servedw ith a Noti ce to App ear all eging th at h e h aden te r edth e Un ite d S ta te s with ou t be ing ad mitt edorp ar ole dan dwas therefor e removabl e because he was inadmi ssible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(6 )(A)(i). United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Oct ober 29, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 60119

2 The charge was subsequently su pplemented to al lege inadmissibi li ty under8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(2)(A

)(i)(II), based on Abbasi’s June 14, 20 01, conviction underTexas la w for mis d em ean orp os se ss ionof mar ijuan a. Abba si filed for two types of relief: an applicati on forwaiv er of his c ontro ll ed substance groun ds of i nadmissibi li ty under8 U .S.C. § 1 182 (h), and an applicati on for cancella tion of removal under 8 U.S. C. § 1229 b(b). Both appli cations required a showing of hard ship to a United States citizen fami ly memb er, and Abba si based them

onalle gedh ar d sh ip toh is d aught erA mma r a. TheIm migr atio n Jud ge (“ IJ”) d en iedbothapp lic atio ns forrelie f. He h eldth at th e § 1182(h) ap p lic atio n was improper bec aus e A bbas i h adn otf

iledit c on c ur r en tly with an appli cation for adjustment of s tatus. He also held that even if the contr oll ed substance ground of i nadmissibi li ty was wai ved, Ab basi w ould sti ll be inadmissib le on the sep ar at e gr o u n d t h at h e la c k e d t h e p r o p e r d o c u m e n t at io n t o be ad m it t e d to the Unit edSt ate s. Th e I J fu r th er he ld th at Abb as i’ s ap p lic atio n fo r c anc ellat ionof r em oval fail ed f or two re asons. First, his c ontrolled substance c onvicti on barred the cancella tion of removal (whether ornot it was waiv ed un der § 118 2(h)), and second , the conviction stopp ed his accru al of continuous p hysical pr esence before the ten years required f

or a c ancell ati on of removal und er § 122 9b(b )(1). Abba si appealed to the Board of Immig ration Appeals (“B oard”). His argument focus ed on the hards hip to his d aughter that would exist if he were r emoved, and he al so asser ted that his marij uana of fense fell into the exception for petty offen ses. The Board dismissed his appeal, holdingtha t t he I J had not erreda nd pointingout that the petty offen se excep tion applies onlyto c rimes of moral turpitude, not t o contr oll ed substance of

fenses . 8 U.S.C. § 118 2(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Abba si now peti tions this cour t for review, ch a l l e n g i n g the Board ’s applicati on of several provisions of the Immig ration and Nati onali ty Act ( “INA”). II. We review only the Board’ s decision except to the extent it was influenced by the IJ’ s d ec isio n. Zhu v. Gonzales , 493 F.3d 588, 593- 94 (5thCir . 2007). In t his c as e w e may r evie w t he IJ’ s d ec isio n bec aus e t he B oar dr ef er r edtoit andagr ee dwit h it.N o. 09- 60119

3 We r evie w de n ovo the Board ’s determinations of questions of la w, but we defer to th e B oar d ’ s c on st r uc tio n of imm igr atio n st atu te s. Vas quez-M art inez v. Hol der , 564 F.3 d 712, 71 5 (5th Cir. 2 009 ). Abba si does not dispute a ny of the Board’ s f indings of fa c t. Abb as i r ais es th r ee c halle nge s onap p eal. H e c halle nge s th e B oar d ’ s fin d ing th at he is ineli gib le for cancella tion of removal , its finding that h e is inel igi bl e fora wai ver of h is c on tr olle ds ubs tan c e gr ou ndof in ad mis sib ility, an dth e B oar d ’ s andIJ’ s r ef us als to hear evidence on the issu e of hardship to hi s U .S. citizen daughter. We find no err or by the Board orIJ on any of thes e issues. The Board prop erly found Abba si ineli gib le for cancella tion of removal under 8 U.S. C. § 1 2 2 9 b (b). That subsec tion provides that the Attorney General may grant cancella tion of removal only to al iens who satisfy fourcond iti ons: (A ) c ontinuous ph y sical p resenc e in the Uni ted States for ten years; (B) good moral c haracter; (C) a lac k of c on vic tio ns f

orof fe ns es u nd erc er tainp r ovis ion s of th e IN A i ncl ud ing § 118 2(a)(2); and (D) exceptional and extremely unusual hardsh ip to the ali en’s spous e, parent, orchild who is a Uni ted States citizen or la wful permanent resident. Abbasi is ineli gib le for c ancell ati on under both (A) and (C) due to his conviction for marij uana poss ession in Texas. The conviction fall s und er § 1 1 8 2 (a )(2), which r ender s inad mis sib l e a n ya l i e nc o n v i c t e do f av i o l a t i o no f

a n yl a wo rr e g u l a t i o no f as t a te relati ng to a contr oll ed s ubstance, and ther efore bars him from bei ng eli gib le for

cance l la tion under § 122 9b(b )(1)(C ). Fur thermore, § 122 9b(d)(1) p rovides that the continuous phy si cal pres ence r equired und er §1229 b(1)(A) ends when the alien commits an offen se r eferr ed to in § 118 2(a)(2), so the same 2001 marijua na conviction stopp ed A

bba si’s acc rual of p hysical pr esence in the United States only fiv e years after his arrival in 1 9 9 6 . Abbasi seems to su ggest that the marij uana conviction does not bar his eli gib il ityfor cancellati on forremoval because the conviction should be wai ved under§ 1182 (h). However, ev en i f Abb asi was eli gib le for a wai ver of the marijua na
c on vic tio n as a g r ou ndof in ad mis sib ility un d er§ 1182(h) , s uc h a w a i ve r aff ec ts on ly t h e f i n d i n go f

i n a d m i s s i b i l i t ya n dn o tt h e u n d e r l y i n gc o n vic tio n. Se eA mo uza de h v. Winfre y , 467 F.3 d 451 , 458 -59 ( 5th Cir. 200 6) (holding that because a w a i v e r u n derN o. 09- 60119

4 no w- r ep eale d§ 212( c ) of th e I NA “‘ waive s’th e f ind ing of

ex c lud ability ord ep or tabilit y rath e r t h a n the basis of exc ludabi li ty itsel f, the c rimes all eged to be ground s f or excludabi li ty or d eportabil ity. . . d o not d isappear fr om t h e a li en’s recor d f or immigr atio n p ur p os es ”) ( quo tin g Mat ter of Bal deras , 20 I&N D ec. 3 89, 3 91 (BIA 1991 ). Therefor e, ev e n a g ra n t of a § 118 2(h) waiver of the c onvicti on as a groundof inad mis sib ility wou ldn otc ur e A bbas i’ s ine ligibilityf

orc anc ellat ionof

r em oval. Fu rth erm or e, th e B oar dp r op er ly f ou ndA bbas i in eligiblef

ora w aiverof

h is

c o n t r o lled s ubstance groundof inadmi ssibil itybecause he had not c oncur rently applied fo ranad jus tme ntof

s tat us u nd er8 U. S.C . § 1255. Th e r egu latio ns s tat e t hatwit h two inap p lic able exc ep tio ns , “ an ap p lic atio n un d er[ 8 C.F .R

. Pa rt 1245] sh all be th e s ole method of

requesti ng the ex ercise of discretion under [§ 1 182 (h)] a s [it] relate[s] to the inad mis sib ility of

analie n in th e Un ite d St ate s. ” 8 C .F.R . § 1245. 1(f)

. See a lso Mat ter of Ba lao , 20 I&N De c . 440 , 446 ( BIA 1992) (ho ld ing th at w aiveru nd er§ 1182(h) was
unava il abl e because the al ien had not applied for an adjustment of s tatus). Abbasi’s applicati on forcancellati on of removal , which is entitl ed “App li cation f or C ancell ati on of Removal and Adjustment of Status,” is not the same as th e a dj u st m ent of status ap p lic atio n un d er§ 1255 t hatis r equ ir edi n orde r f or § 1182 (h) waive rtoap p ly; h is applicati on falls u n der § 122 9b(b )’s pr ovisi on forcancellati on of removal and adjustment of s tatus. Add iti onall y, even if Abba si did r eceive a wai ver und er § 118 2(h) fo r his mar ijuan a c on vic tio n, he wou ld r em ain r em ovab le on th e ot he r gr ound of h is inad mis sib ility as anilleg al e nt r antu nd er§ 1182( a) (6 )( A) (i)

. Fina ll y , b e ca use the IJ and the Boarddid not need to reach the question of har d sh i p d ue toA

bbas i’ s ot he rgr ou nd s fo rin eligibilit y f orr elie f, th ey d idn oter rin fail ing to hear more tes timonyregarding hard ship to A bba si’s U.S. citizen daughter. III. For t he r e as o ns s t at e d ab o ve , t he pe t i t i o n f o r r e vi e w i s D EN I ED a nd t he

o r d e r o f t h e B o a r d i s A F F I RMED.