Opinion ID: 2708713
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission and Inspection

Text: Singh also argues that we should reverse the Board and hold that he established inspection and admission into the United States. In general, “[a]n alien present in the United States without being admitted” is inadmissible. 8 U.S.C. 4 Singh claims that the date on the I‐213 is a transcription error. He sub‐ mits an alleged photocopy of the passport he says he provided to the INS in 1997. The photocopy has a birthdate of May 21, 1982, contradicting the birthdate he asserts now. (Singh has not submitted a passport for Tarsem Singh that lists a birthdate of June 13, 1982, which he claims is his true birthdate.) Regardless of this discrepancy, the conflicting, supposedly authentic documents he has submitted to immigration authorities make it impossible to rely on this passport photocopy as conclusive evidence of his true birthdate or even the birthdate that he gave the INS in 1997. 5 The Immigration Services Field Office Director who reviewed the I‐130 petition that Singh’s wife made on his behalf in 2011 appears to be the only immigration official to have conducted a detailed examination of Singh’s documentation. She concluded that the most credible documents showed Singh’s date of birth to be February 4, 1978, which would of course make him nineteen when he was detained in 1997. We do not rely on that finding, but it gives us added confidence in concluding that Singh cannot establish that he was fifteen when he was detained in 1997. No. 13‐2552 11 § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). However, an alien who was inspected and admitted into the United States is eligible for adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The alien has the burden of estab‐ lishing inspection and admission by clear and convincing evidence. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(2)(B), 1361. So, if Singh can establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was in‐ spected and admitted into the United States, he would be eligible for adjustment of status. Otherwise, he is ineligible for that relief. The Board held that Singh failed to meet this burden. The Board did not err on this point. Singh asserts that he entered the United States via commercial airliner at JFK In‐ ternational Airport in New York. He admits, however, that he does not specifically remember passing through customs or being inspected by immigration officials. He has also claimed three different dates of entry in different immigra‐ tion documents and proceedings, undercutting the credibil‐ ity of his story. Singh’s corroborating witnesses similarly at‐ test to the fact that Singh told them he had arrived on an air‐ plane, but they do not recall him saying anything about cus‐ toms. These accounts do not establish inspection and admis‐ sion. Even if Singh arrived in the United States via commer‐ cial airliner, we hesitate to assume that smugglers exit air‐ ports only by passing through immigration and customs controls. Singh’s I‐213 and the I‐130 petition filed on his behalf in 2001 reinforce our concerns.6 The I‐213 stated that there were 6 The 2001 I‐130 petition was filed by Singh’s wife at the time. Singh has since divorced and remarried; his current wife filed an I‐130 petition on his behalf in 2011, as discussed above in note 5. 12 No. 13‐2552 no visa or entry stamps on the passport Singh provided to the INS. The alleged photocopy of that passport that Singh has provided in these proceedings similarly lacks any signs of inspection or admission. The I‐213 also stated that Singh had been admitted without inspection, as did the I‐130 peti‐ tion for an alien relative that Singh’s then‐wife filed on his behalf in 2001. These documents strongly suggest that Singh did not pass through immigration and customs when he ar‐ rived in the United States. The Board therefore did not err by finding that Singh did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was inspected and admitted into the United States. We therefore DENY Singh’s petition for review.