Opinion ID: 148078
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application for Adjustment of Status

Text: Lopez next argues that the IJ and BIA erred in finding that he was inadmissible under § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) because, he contends, the record did not sufficiently demonstrate that he had falsely claimed to be a United States citizen when he attempted to enter the country in October 1998. According to Lopez, the only evidence suggesting that he purposefully misrepresented himself as a United States citizen is his ambiguous statement to the immigration inspector that he had “said U.S.” when asked how he “present[ed himself] for inspection.” Lopez now argues that this statement is subject to 1 In support of his argument that he needed additional time to prepare for the merits hearing, Lopez claims that he did not have a copy of his first application for adjustment of status or the exhibits pertaining to his 1998 expedited removal proceedings until the government submitted them to the immigration court on December 31, 2007. He does not, however, explain why the one-month period between the government’s submission and his removal hearing was insufficient. 6 varying interpretations—“[i]t is just as likely that [he] . . . meant that he had said ‘U.S.’ to the border control officer in as far as where he was going.” (Br. 33–34.) We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). When, as in this case, the BIA substantially relies on the findings of the IJ, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. See Xie v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 239, 242 (3d Cir. 2004). We review these findings, including any credibility determinations, under a substantial evidence standard. See Cao v. Att’y Gen., 407 F.3d 146, 152 (3d Cir. 2005). An adverse credibility finding must be upheld unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Berishaj v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 314, 322 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). We exercise plenary review over Lopez’s challenge to the agency’s determination that he was statutory ineligible for adjustment of status. See Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193, 204 (3d Cir. 2005). Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lopez made a false claim to citizenship. Although Lopez’s account of the alleged miscommunication is certainly plausible, he has not shown that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reject the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Accordingly, because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Lopez was inadmissible for permanent residence, the IJ and BIA correctly concluded that he was therefore ineligible for adjustment of status. We have reviewed Lopez’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are 7 without merit. Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review. 8