Opinion ID: 802402
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: At the outset, we note that the BIA and several of our sister circuits have interpreted the language of 8 U.S.C. § 1255(d) to bar an alien admitted to the United States on a K-1 visa from obtaining LPR 4 status on any basis other than marriage to the K-1 visa sponsor. See, e.g., Birdsong v. Holder, 641 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 2011); Zhang v. Holder, 375 F. App’x 879, 885 (10th Cir. 2010); Choin v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 1116, 1120 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008); Markovski v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 108, 111 (4th Cir. 2007); Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. 431, 437–38 (BIA 2011). Caraballo-Tavera does not contest that § 1255(d) bars a “nonimmigrant alien described in [8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(K)]” from adjusting his status on any basis other than marriage to the K-1 visa sponsor. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(d). Instead, he argues that he is not subject to the restrictions set forth in § 1255(d) because he is not a “nonimmigrant alien described in [8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(K)].” In essence, Caraballo-Tavera contends that he “ceased to be a nonimmigrant” subject to § 1255(d) when he adjusted his status to CLPR in December 1999. The Ninth Circuit confronted a similar claim in Kalal v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2005), in which a petitioner who did not marry her K-1 visa sponsor was granted CLPR status in error. The Ninth Circuit held that “[o]nce [Kalal’s] improperly granted CLPR status was rescinded, Kalal was in the position of a K-1 visa holder who neither married her fiancé within 90 days of entry, nor departed. In short, she was removable.” Id. at 951. The court concluded that Kalal was obligated to comply with the “specific restrictive process for holders of that kind of visa,” and that § 1255(d) precluded Kalal from adjusting her status to LPR on any basis other than her marriage to the original K-1 visa sponsor. Id. at 951–52. Unlike the petitioner in Kalal, Caraballo-Tavera complied with the initial statutory requirements by marrying his fiancée within 90 days of his arrival in the United States and adjusting to CLPR status on the basis of his marriage. But in the end, both petitioners lost their CLPR status because they failed to fully comply with the K-1 visa requirements—Kalal because she failed to marry her K-1 visa sponsor, and Caraballo-Tavera because he failed to prove the bona fides of his marriage. Because Caraballo-Tavera 5 failed to complete the process for K-1 visa holders to obtain full LPR status, he, like Kalal, is in the position of an “out of status” K-1 visa admittee. It is clear from the statutory scheme set forth above that Congress has devised “a specific restrictive process” for K-1 visa holders. Id. at 952. As an “out of status” K-1 visa admittee who has failed to follow the required statutory process, Caraballo-Tavera remains subject to the restrictions in § 1255(d). He is therefore ineligible to adjust his status to LPR on any basis other than marriage to his K-1 visa sponsor. See, e.g., Choin, 537 F.3d at 1119 n.4 (“There is no question that the plain language of [§ 1255(d)] bars K visaholders from adjusting to permanent resident status on any basis other than the marriage to the citizen who petitioned on their behalf.”). Accordingly, we conclude that Caraballo-Tavera’s application for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) was properly denied, since he is ineligible as a matter of law to adjust his status based on his daughter’s immigrant visa petition. This conclusion is in accord with 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(6), the regulation addressing K-1 visas, which provides that “[a]ny alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant [K-1 visa holder]” is ineligible to adjust status except to that of a CLPR on the basis of the marriage to the K-1 visa sponsor. 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(6) (emphasis added). The BIA correctly determined (albeit in a non-precedential decision), and we now hold, that the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(6) clearly applies the § 1255(d) bar to an alien who was originally admitted to the United States on a K-1 nonimmigrant visa. See 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(6). Because Caraballo-Tavera was originally admitted to the United States on a K-1 nonimmigrant visa, he cannot adjust his status to that of a full LPR on any basis other than marriage to his original K-1 visa sponsor.2 The BIA’s decision in Matter of Stockwell, 20 I&N Dec. 309 (BIA 1991), is not to the contrary. In that case, the BIA concluded that § 1255(d) did not prohibit an alien whose CLPR status had been 2 We do not, of course, suggest—much less hold—that an alien who fails to comply with the K-1 process is forever barred from seeking legal immigrant or nonimmigrant status in the United States under otherwise applicable law. 6 terminated from adjusting his status to that of LPR. Id. at 311–12. Caraballo-Tavera argues that § 1255(d), as interpreted by the BIA in Matter of Stockwell, should not bar him from adjusting his status on the basis of his daughter’s approved immigrant visa petition merely because his CLPR status has been terminated. Two key distinctions undermine his reliance on the holding of Matter of Stockwell. First, as the BIA noted, the alien in Matter of Stockwell entered the United States as a “visitor for pleasure” rather than a K-1 visa holder. Second, and more importantly, Matter of Stockwell was predicated on the interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(b)(12) (1991) (now 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(5)), which bars adjustment for “[a]ny alien who is already an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on a conditional basis pursuant to section 216 of the Act.” Matter of Stockwell, 20 I&N Dec. at 311 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(b)(12) (1991)) (emphasis added) (alteration in original). As the BIA properly noted, the regulation at issue here has no such temporal limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(6) (barring adjustment, except on the basis of marriage to the K-1 visa sponsor, for “[a]ny alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant [K-1 visa holder]”). Based on these distinctions, we find Matter of Stockwell inapplicable to the facts of this case.