Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 836 (BIA 2005) Interim Decision #3520 

In re Sejid SMRIKO, Respondent 

File A71 685 464 - Newark 

Decided November 10, 2005 

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

(1) Removal proceedings may be commenced against an alien who was admitted to the 

United States as a refugee under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

8 U.S.C. § 1157 (2000), without prior termination of the alien’s refugee status. 

(2) The respondent, who was admitted to the Unites States as a refugee and adjusted his 

status to that of a lawful permanent resident, is subject to removal on the basis of his 

convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude, even though his refugee status was never 

terminated. 

FOR RESPONDENT: James G. Gavin, Esquire, Burlington, New Jersey 

AMICI CURIAE:1 Luis Cordero, Esquire, Miami, Florida; J. Brett Grosko, Esquire, 

Miami, Florida; Christopher Nugent, Esquire, Washington, D.C.; Harlan Goodson, 

Esquire, Sacramento, California 

FOR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Susan G. Roy, Assistant Chief 

Counsel 

BEFORE: Board Panel: HOLMES, HURWITZ, and MILLER, Board Members. 

HOLMES, Board Member: 

In a decision dated December 13, 2002, we affirmed without opinion an 

Immigration Judge’s October 11, 2000, decision finding the respondent 

removable under sections 237(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii) (2000), as an alien 

convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. On October 26, 2004, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded the case to us 

We acknowledge the very helpful briefs submitted by the parties and by amici curiae, 

participating members of the Refugee Council USA and supporting groups. 

836 

1
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 836 (BIA 2005) Interim Decision #3520 

with a request that we address whether the respondent lost his “refugee status” 

when he was admitted as a lawful permanent resident pursuant to 

section 209(a)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(2) (1994). Smriko v. 

Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2004). 2 

As discussed below, we find that an alien who has been admitted as a refugee 

and has adjusted his or her status to that of a lawful permanent resident may be 

placed in removal proceedings for acts or conduct amounting to grounds for 

removal under section 237(a) of the Act. Although some vestiges of refugee 

status are afforded by regulation to refugees who have been admitted as lawful 

permanent residents, termination of refugee status is not a precondition to the 

initiation of removal proceedings against refugees who have adjusted their 

status. We will therefore again dismiss the respondent’s appeal from the 

Immigration Judge’s decision ordering him removed from the United States to 

Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

The respondent was admitted to the United States as a refugee on October 20, 

1994, pursuant to section 207 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (1994). In 

May 1996, his status was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident 

pursuant to section 209 of the Act. Following his convictions for theft offenses 

in December 1996 and April 1999, the respondent was placed in removal 

proceedings and was charged with having been convicted of crimes involving 

moral turpitude. 

II. ISSUE 

The respondent relies on section 207(c)(4) of the Act for the proposition that 

he remains a refugee under section 207 and is therefore immune from removal 

proceedings until his refugee status is terminated. Section 207(c)(4) provides 

as follows:

 The refugee status of an alien (and of the spouse or child of the alien) may be 

terminated by the Attorney General pursuant to such regulations as the Attorney 

General may prescribe if the Attorney General determines that the alien was not in 

fact a refugee within the meaning of section 101(a)(42) at the time of the alien’s 

admission. 

The respondent asserts that he cannot be removed from the United States based 

on his criminal convictions because his refugee status was not terminated 

2 The court affirmed the Immigration Judge’s finding that the respondent’s offenses were 

crimes involving moral turpitude, which rendered him removable. Smriko v. Ashcroft, 

supra, at 282-83. 

837
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 836 (BIA 2005) Interim Decision #3520 

pursuant to section 207(c)(4), and there is no other provision in the Act or the 

regulations that provides for termination or cancellation of refugee status. 

III. ANALYSIS 

A review of the provisions for admission of refugees within the overall 

statutory framework for admission and removal of aliens indicates that 

Congress did not consider termination of refugee status to be a prerequisite to 

initiating removal proceedings against aliens admitted as refugees. Section 239 

of the Act, the provision regulating the commencement of removal proceedings, 

is addressed to “the alien” and does not distinguish between aliens admitted as 

refugees and any other aliens. Section 237(a) of the Act also provides that 

“[a]ny alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States 

shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed” if the alien is within 

one or more of the classes of deportable aliens described in that section. 

(Emphasis added.) Sections 237(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii), under which the 

respondent has been charged, likewise refer to “[a]ny alien who” has been 

convicted of a crime or crimes involving moral turpitude within the time periods 

and under the conditions specified. (Emphasis added.) The consistent reference 

to “any alien” in the statutory provisions governing removal proceedings and the 

lack of mention of prior termination of refugee status are strong indications that 

aliens admitted as refugees are subject to removal proceedings without the 

preliminary step of terminating refugee status under section 207(c)(4). 

The provisions governing refugee admissions provide further support for the 

viewthat Congress did not intend to immunize aliens admitted as refugees from 

placement in removal proceedings. Section 207 of the Act outlines the process 

for admission of refugees and sets limits on the number of refugee admissions 

for each fiscal year. For aliens admitted as refugees under section 207, section 

209 of the Act provides the following framework for eventual adjustment of 

status to lawful permanent resident: 

Criteria and Procedures Applicable for Admission as Immigrant; Effect of 

Adjustment 

(1) Any alien who has been admitted to the United States under section 207—

(A) whose admission has not been terminated by the Attorney General pursuant 

to such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, 

(B) who has been physically present in the United States for at least one year, 

and 

(C) who has not acquired permanent resident status,

shall, at the end of such year period, return or be returned to the custody of the 

Service for inspection and examination for admission to the United States as an 

immigrant in accordance with the provisions of sections 235, 240, and 241. 

Section 209(a) of the Act (emphasis added). 

838
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 836 (BIA 2005) Interim Decision #3520 

Under this provision, a refugee whose admission has not been terminated by 

the Attorney General is to be inspected and examined for admission as an 

immigrant within the general framework for removal proceedings. Notably, the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, now the Department of Homeland 

Security, is directed to consider the admissibility of such aliens pursuant to 

sections 235, 240, and 241 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1229a, and 1231 

(2000). These are the same provisions referred to in the regulations for the 

disposition of cases in which refugee status is terminated pursuant to 

section 207(c)(4) of the Act.3 Section 240, in particular, provides that an alien 

placed in removal proceedings may be charged with “any applicable ground of 

inadmissibility under section 212(a) or any applicable ground of deportability 

under section 237(a).” Section 240(a)(2) of the Act. 

Section 209(c) of the Act provides that certain grounds of inadmissibility in 

section 212(a) are inapplicable to an alien seeking adjustment of status under 

section 209, and that the Attorney General may also 

waive any other provision of such section (other than paragraph (2)(C) or 

subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (E) of paragraph (3)) with respect to such an alien for 

humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public 

interest. 

Under this provision, aliens admitted as refugees who have criminal convictions 

may seek a waiver of inadmissibility at the time they apply for adjustment of 

status, unless they are deemed to be controlled substance traffickers under 

section 212(a)(2)(C). 

The implementing regulation provides that section 209 is the “sole and 

exclusive procedure for adjustment of status by a refugee admitted under 

section 207 of the Act whose application is based on his or her refugee status.” 

8 C.F.R. § 209.1 (2005). It further directs that every such alien whose status has 

not been terminated must apply within 1 year after entry for a determination of 

admissibility under section 212 of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 209.1(a). The regulation 

provides the following directive for cases in which the refugee applicant for 

adjustment of status is found inadmissible: 

If the applicant is determined to be inadmissible or no longer a refugee, the director 

will deny the application and notify the applicant of the reasons for the denial. The 

director will, in the same denial notice, inform the applicant of his or her right to renew 

the request for permanent residence in removal proceedings under section 240 

of the Act. There is no appeal of the denial of an application by the director, but such 

3 The regulation implementing section 207(c)(4) of the Act states that “[u]pon termination 

of refugee status, the district director shall process the alien under sections 235, 240, and 241 

of the Act.” 8 C.F.R. § 207.9 (2005). 

839
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 836 (BIA 2005) Interim Decision #3520 

denialwill be without prejudice to the alien’s right to renew the application in removal 

proceedings under part 240 of this chapter. 

8 C.F.R. § 209.1(e) (emphasis added). This regulation clearly authorizes the 

commencement of removal proceedings against aliens admitted as refugees 

without prior termination of refugee status under section 207(c)(4) of the Act. 

The language of sections 209(a) and (c) of the Act and the implementing 

regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 209.1 clearly indicate that an alien who has been 

admitted as a refugee may be found inadmissible at the time of application for 

admission as a lawful permanent resident. A finding of inadmissibility, absent 

a waiver under section 209(c), precludes a refugee from adjustment to lawful 

permanent resident status and renders the alien susceptible to placement in 

removal proceedings for conduct or offenses constituting grounds for removal. 

The Attorney General has summarized the refugee adjustment process 

described above as follows: 

Section 209(a) provides that a refugee who has been physically present in the United 

States for at least one year and whose conditional admission status has not been 

terminated must return (or be returned) to INS custody for inspection and examination 

to determine eligibility for lawful permanent residency. If, after conducting this 

examination, an immigration officer concludes that the alien seeking permanent 

residency “is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” he or she must 

be detained for a removal proceeding. See Act § 235(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1225(b)(2)(A) (2000). The INS is free to charge the alien in the ensuing 

proceeding, which is overseen by an immigration judge, with any applicable 

ground of inadmissibility or deportability. See INA § 240(a). 

Matter of Jean, 23 I&N Dec. 373, 381 (A.G. 2002) (emphasis added). The 

Attorney General’s explanation of the refugee adjustment process indicates that 

a refugee, although conditionally admitted to the United States, may be placed 

in removal proceedings without regard to whether refugee status has been 

terminated pursuant to section 207(c)(4). The respondent’s argument that the 

Attorney General’s termination of refugee status is a precondition to removal 

is directly refuted by the statute, the promulgating regulation, and the Attorney 

General’s explanation of the refugee adjustment process in Matter of Jean, 

supra. See also Matter of Garcia-Alzugaray, 19 I&N Dec. 407 (BIA 1986) 

(interpreting the predecessor provision of section 209(a) and the implementing 

regulations to permit a refugee to be placed in exclusion proceedings after a 

finding of inadmissibility by the inspecting immigration officer). 

If conditional admission as a refugee does not immunize an alien from the 

general grounds of admissibility, it follows that a refugee admitted as a lawful 

permanent resident, such as the respondent, is not immunized from the grounds 

for removal that are applicable to all other aliens. Otherwise, a refugee 

convicted of a removable offense prior to adjustment of status could be placed 

in removal proceedings, while a refugee who, like the respondent, was convicted 

840
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 836 (BIA 2005) Interim Decision #3520 

after adjustment of status for the same offense would be immune from removal. 

We find no logical basis, and no support in the statutory or regulatory 

framework, for drawing such a distinction based on whether the conviction 

occurred before or after adjustment of status. The most reasonable reading of 

section 209, within the overall statutory framework, is that a refugee whose 

status has been adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident is subject to all 

applicable grounds for removal and to placement in removal proceedings. This 

has long been the accepted understanding of the immigration law. See, e.g., 

Matter of Bahta, 22 I&N Dec. 1381, 1382 n.2 (BIA 2000); Matter of 

Garcia-Alzugaray, supra. 

Under the respondent’s view, an alien admitted as a refugee who subsequently 

adjusted status could commit crimes with impunity, or even engage in terrorist 

activity and remain exempt from removal from the United States, without regard 

to whether he or she had a continuing need for protection from persecution in 

the country of origin, so long as refugee status was not terminated by the 

Attorney General. Given that the Attorney General is authorized to terminate 

refugee status only when it is determined that the alien was not, in fact, a refugee 

at the time of his or her initial admission as a refugee, the vast majority of aliens 

admitted as refugees would be immune from removal without regard to conduct 

after admission. It is difficult to imagine that Congress intended such a result. 

Given the plain reference to section 240 removal proceedings in 

section 209(a) of the Act and the absence of any clear statement in the statute 

or the legislative history that refugees, including those who have adjusted status, 

are exempt from removal proceedings, we are not convinced by the respondent’s 

arguments that he retains refugee status and cannot be removed from the United 

States until his status is terminated under section 207(c)(4). In so concluding, 

we have considered the references to legislative history in the court’s decision 

remanding this case and in the briefs submitted by the parties and by amici 

curiae. None of these provisions, alone or in combination, provide convincing 

reasons for reaching a conclusion contrary to what we find to be the more 

natural and sensible reading of the statute. 

The respondent and amici curiae refer to regulatory provisions affording 

various benefits to aliens admitted as refugees that may apply after the time of 

adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. 

§ 207.7(d) (2005) (providing that an alien admitted as a refugee may request 

accompanying or following-to-join benefits for a spouse or unmarried children 

for up to 2 years after admission to the United States); 8 C.F.R. § 223.2(b)(2)(i) 

(2005) (providing that a refugee travel document may be afforded to a 

permanent resident who received such status as a result of asylum or refugee 

status). The fact that designated vestiges of refugee status apply to refugees who 

have adjusted to lawful permanent resident status does not, however, lead to the 

conclusion that such aliens are immune from the grounds for removal or 

placement in removal proceedings. Even if all benefits of refugee status were 

841
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 836 (BIA 2005) Interim Decision #3520 

to be retained by a refugee who has adjusted status to that of a lawful permanent 

resident, he or she would not be shielded from placement in removal 

proceedings. 

The respondent argues that his removal would violate the United Nations 

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted July 28, 1951, 

189 U.N.T.S. 150 (entered into force Apr. 22, 1954) (“Convention”), and the 

United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for 

signature Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 

(entered into force Oct. 4, 1967; for United States Nov. 1, 1968) (“Protocol”). 

This argument fails to take into account the protections included in the context 

of removal proceedings, which implement the provisions of the Convention and 

the Protocol. These protections are afforded to all aliens, not just to those 

admitted as refugees. Most importantly, section 241(b)(3) of the Act generally 

precludes the return of any alien to a country where the alien’s life or freedom 

would be threatened because of race, religion, nationality, membership in a 

particular social group, or political opinion. Additionally, the provisions of the 

asylum law in section 208 of the Act afford relief from removal to aliens who 

continue to meet the definition of a “refugee” in section 101(a)(42) of the Act, 

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (2000). 

In this regard, the Convention provides that its refugee protections cease to 

applyin situations in which “the circumstances in connexion with which [refugee 

status was recognized] have ceased to exist.” Convention, art. 1C(5). The 

respondent was afforded the opportunity to pursue a claim to asylum or 

withholding of removal in the proceedings below. He ultimately declined to 

seek such relief after acknowledging that he no longer faces a threat to his life 

or freedom and no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina. We therefore find little force to the respondent’s contentions that 

the statutory framework under which he was found removable violates 

provisions of the Convention or the Protocol. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, we find no merit to the respondent’s assertion 

that he is immune from removal on the basis of his convictions for crimes 

involving moral turpitude because his refugee status has not been terminated 

under section 207(c)(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the respondent’s appeal will 

be dismissed. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed and the respondent is ordered removed 

to Bosnia and Herzegovina pursuant to the Immigration Judge’s order of 

October 11, 2000. 

842