Opinion ID: 2743141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Regis’ Application Process

Text: Regis is a native and citizen of the Philippines who was born on February 18, 1986. On February 13, 2007, the United States embassy’s consular office in the Philippines (the “Consulate”) issued a K-1 nonimmigrant visa to Regis’ mother, following the successful petition of her U.S. citizen fiancé. At the same time, the Consulate issued K-2 visas to Regis and his three siblings as the children of a K-1 visa holder. Regis was 20 years old when he received his K-2 visa, which stated that it would remain valid until August 11, 2007. Regis’ mother entered the United States sometime in February 2007 and married her U.S. citizen fiancé on February 26, 2007. Regis did not accompany his mother, but entered the United States later on March 25, 2007, over a month after his 21st birthday on February 18, 2007. On May 16, 2007, he timely filed an application for adjustment of status to lawful conditional permanent resident. USCIS denied the application, concluding that Regis was ineligible to adjust his status because he had already attained age 21 and was no longer a “child” as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1). Regis moved for reconsideration, and USCIS dismissed that motion. On November 15, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against Regis by filing a Notice to 6 Appear, which charged him with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), as an alien who was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant and remained beyond the time permitted. Appearing before the immigration court, Regis admitted the facts contained in the Notice to Appear and conceded removability. He argued, however, that he was eligible for adjustment of status because he was less than 21 years old at the time he applied for the K-2 visa and cited Carpio v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2010), in support. In Carpio, the petitioner had also entered the United States on a derivative K-2 visa but, unlike Regis, was less than 21 years old on the date of entry. Id. at 1092. The Board nevertheless denied the adjustment because the petitioner had turned 21 before the agency adjudicated his application. Id. at 1092-93. The Tenth Circuit overturned the Board’s decision, concluding that eligibility should be determined as of the date a K-2 alien “seeks to enter” the United States. Id. at 10981101. Given the particular facts before it, the court was not required to pinpoint when a K-2 applicant “seeks to enter,” but observed that the date may be plausibly read as either (1) the date that the United States citizen files a petition for K-1 and K–2 visas with the Secretary of Homeland Security under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(d)(1), or (b) the date that the K–1 and K–2 visa applications are filed with the consular officer in the country of origin. 7 Id. at 1104. The IJ found Carpio inapplicable in this case under the holding in Matter of Le, 25 I. & N. Dec. 541 (B.I.A. 2011), which the Board had decided during the pendency of Regis’ case. In Matter of Le, a three-judge panel of the Board concluded that a K-2 visa holder’s age at the time he actually enters the United States determines whether he is a “minor child” under the INA. Id. at 550. Based on Matter of Le, the IJ denied Regis’ application for adjustment of status because Regis was over 21 when he entered the United States under his K-2 visa. Accordingly, the IJ ordered Regis removed from the United States. Regis appealed to the Board, arguing again that he was eligible for adjustment of status because he was under 21 at the time he sought a K-2 visa. The Board dismissed Regis’ appeal, adopting and affirming the IJ’s decision. Concluding that Matter of Le was precedential and dispositive, the Board held that Regis was ineligible to adjust status because he was not a “minor child” at the time he was admitted to the United States. Regis filed a timely petition for review to this Court. We have jurisdiction to consider his petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 8