tension in the statutes and in a
reasonable way implements the intent of Congress that some, but
not all, illegal aliens may adjust their status to that of a
lawful permanent resident. Unlike section 1182(a)(6)(A)(i),
application of section 1182(a)(9))C)(i) to preclude eligibility
for adjustment of status under section 1255(i)(1)(A)(i) does not
render section 1255(i)(1)(A)(i) a nullity. Not all aliens
covered by section 1255(i)(1)(A)(i) are rendered inadmissible by
Also, the two provisions ((I) and (II)) have the same single subject ("Any alien who") and are but alternate predicates to the same single operative phrase, "who enters or attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted is inadmissible." See note 3 supra. Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), under which inadmissibility is predicated on entry without parole or admission, and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i), under which inadmissibility is based on unlawful presence. Under neither provision is a second illegal entry an issue.
section 1182(a)(9)(C)(i). We hold, therefore, that the decision
of the BIA is entitled to Chevron deference because the Board was
not acting arbitrarily when it ruled that Mortera, who is
inadmissible under section 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), is not eligible
to adjust his status under section 1255(i)(1)(A)(i).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the BIA is
AFFIRMED.