Case Name: Salvador MORA, Petitioner v. Peter D KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-09
Citations: 254 F. App'x 334
Docket Number: No. 07-60196
Parties: Salvador MORA, Petitioner v. Peter D KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 254
Pages: 334–334

Head Matter:
Salvador MORA, Petitioner v. Peter D KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-60196
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 9, 2007.
Angie N. N’Duka, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Clifford Cunningham, Saul Greenstein, Peter D. Keisler, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Kristi Barrows, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, for Respondent.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Salvador Mora, a native of Mexico illegally present in the United States, petitions for review of a final order of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the decision of the Immigration Judge finding him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) and thus ineligible to adjust status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). We review the BIA's conclusions of law de novo while granting Chevron deference to its reasonable interpretations of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Mortera-Cruz v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 246, 250 (5th Cir.2005).
Mora now apparently concedes his inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) but contends that Congress did not intend for such inadmissibility to affect his ability to seek adjustment of status under § 1255(i), relying on the Tenth Circuit's decision in Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir.2005), as well as the Ninth Circuit's decision in Acosta v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 550 (9th Cir.2006). As Mora acknowledges, we have previously upheld as reasonable the BIA's interpretation that compliance with the requirements of § 1255(i) does not cure inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). Mortera-Cruz, 409 F.3d at 256. This court is aware the Ninth and Tenth Circuits hold otherwise, but that is not the law in this circuit. See Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 411 n. 3 (5th Cir.1998).
Mora's arguments are foreclosed. Mortera-Cruz, 409 F.3d at 256. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984).