Opinion ID: 42937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statutory & Regulatory Background

Text: 8 Before 1960, aliens in the United States without a valid visa had to go abroad to apply for permanent resident (immigrant) status. In 1960, Congress eliminated that burden by expanding eligibility for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) to all aliens inspected and admitted or paroled, 4 allowing people in the country to apply for immigrant status without leaving, even those in the country without a valid visa. Paroled aliens are those aliens allowed to enter the country temporarily, without a valid visa, while authorities investigate their eligibility for admission. Under § 1255(a), Respondent may, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, grant such an application. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) makes unreviewable his use of that discretion. 9 Before 1997, aliens were divided into two categories: applicants for admission, also called arriving aliens, those aliens who had not yet entered 5 the country, and aliens present in the U.S. who had already entered, with or without inspection. Paroled aliens were considered arriving aliens. After inspection, arriving aliens were either admitted or excluded during exclusion proceedings; aliens who had already entered were either admitted or deported during deportation proceedings. 10 Pursuant to § 1255(a), parolees could adjust status with the District Director— even if they were in exclusion proceedings. The BIA held that in exclusion proceedings, the District Director, not the IJ, maintained jurisdiction over applications. 6 11 The 1997 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) 7 eliminated the concept of entry to differentiate aliens, replacing it with the concept of admitted versus non-admitted aliens. The main effect is that aliens present in the U.S. who have not been not been inspected or admitted are added to those considered applicants for admission, or arriving aliens. It also replaced exclusion and deportation with removal, applicable to all aliens in the country without inspection, inspected but not admitted, or previously admitted but now subject to removal. 8 The IIRIRA did not change § 1255(a) or otherwise change the adjustment of status process. 12 In 1997, Attorney General Janet Reno issued new regulations said to implement the IIRIRA. The regulations created a new definition for arriving alien, a term that had existed without definition in the old statute: The term arriving alien means an applicant for admission coming or attempting to come into the United States at a port of entry .... An arriving aliens remains such even if paroled [except aliens paroled before April 1, 1997 or aliens receiving advance parole].... 9 This definition is not in controversy, merely codifying the previously understood definition, which under the IIRIRA now encompasses all non-admitted aliens. 13 The Attorney General made a more substantive change to the adjustment of status regulations, 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(8), rendering seven categories of aliens ineligible to apply for adjustment of status under § 1255(a), including [a]ny arriving alien who is in removal proceedings .... This regulation dovetails with the new regulation governing adjustment procedure, promulgated at the same time: 14 An alien [who believes he is eligible for adjustment of status] shall apply to the director having jurisdiction over his or her place of residence .... After an alien, other than an arriving alien, is in deportation or removal proceedings, his or her application ... shall be made and considered only in those proceedings ... An arriving alien, other than an alien in removal proceedings, who believes he or she meets the eligibility requirements... shall apply to the director having jurisdiction over his or her place of arrival. . . . [An alien on advance parole (hence not an arriving alien) whose application was denied by the District Director may renew that application in removal proceedings.] 10 15 Thus, § 245.1(c)(8) prevents arriving aliens, including parolees, in removal proceedings from filing for adjustment of status, either with the District Director, as they had been able to do in exclusion proceedings before 1997, or the IJ. 16 The parties agree that Akhtar and Salman are parolees in removal proceedings. 11 Instead, Akhtar and Salman challenge the validity of § 245.1(c)(8), arguing that in rendering parolees in removal proceedings ineligible to apply, it conflicts with § 1255(a), which makes parolees eligible to apply without mention of removal proceedings. 17 In promulgating § 245.1(c)(8), the Attorney General explained that she was furthering Congress's intent to expedite removal of arriving aliens by not favorably exercis[ing] her unreviewable discretion to adjust status under §§ 1255(a) and 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). 12 She explained further that arriving aliens in removal proceedings eligible for immigrant visas would have to return to their home countries to apply, although she might exercise her prosecutorial discretion not to initiate removal proceedings or to terminate removal proceedings to allow applicants to apply to the District Director. Respondent Alberto Gonzalez, Reno's successor, maintains this position. 18 Akhtar and Salman reply that Respondent cannot by regulation redefine eligibility defined by Congress, despite his unreviewable discretion once the applications are filed. Hence the heart of this case: how to resolve the inherent tension in a statutory scheme that explicitly defines who is eligible to apply but gives Respondent unreviewable discretion to review the applications.