Court Opinion

ID: 9947548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 01:00:42.987829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:33.965481
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60022      Document: 56-1     Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/04/2024

        United States Court of Appeals
             for the Fifth Circuit                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                            ____________                             FILED
                                                                 March 4, 2024
                             No. 23-60022                       Lyle W. Cayce
                            ____________                             Clerk

Fody Daniel Membreno-Rodriguez,

                                                                Petitioner,

                                  versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                              Respondent.
              ______________________________

              Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals
                        Agency No. A212 946 378
               ______________________________

Before Jones, Dennis, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
       Fody Daniel Membreno-Rodriguez filed a petition for review of the
denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. After the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the denial of his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT), Membreno-Rodriguez sought to reopen his
immigration proceedings to apply for adjustment of status based on his
marriage to a U.S. citizen. The BIA denied Membreno-Rodriguezs motion
to reopen. For the reasons below, we DENY the petition for review.
 Case: 23-60022         Document: 56-1        Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/04/2024

                                    No. 23-60022

       Membreno-Rodriguez, who is a native and citizen of Honduras,
applied for admission to the United States on April 5, 2017. Membreno-
Rodriguez was referred to an asylum officer, who found that Membreno-
Rodriguez demonstrated a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned
to Honduras. On April 12, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) issued a Notice to Appear (NTA), which charged Membreno-
Rodriguez as inadmissible to the United States under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) because he sought admission to the United States
without a valid entry document. Membreno-Rodriguez was subsequently
granted parole under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(b)(5). Membreno-Rodriguezs parole
status expired on April 27, 2018.
       During his removal proceedings, Membreno-Rodriguez admitted to
the charge of inadmissibility contained in the NTA. He further filed an
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
CAT, which was denied by an immigration judge (IJ) after a merits
hearing. Membreno-Rodriguez appealed the IJs decision to the BIA, which
affirmed the IJs decision and dismissed Membreno-Rodriguezs appeal.1
      Membreno-Rodriguez later filed a motion to reopen his removal
proceedings based on, inter alia, his marriage to a U.S. citizen in 2020. He
argued that his case should be reopened to allow him to pursue adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) based on a
pending I-130 visa petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife. Membreno-
Rodriguez subsequently filed an I-979 Notice of Action, showing that the I-
130 petition was approved by the United Sates Citizenship and Immigration

       _____________________
       1
          Membreno-Rodriguez does not seek review of the BIAs decision affirming the
IJs denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
CAT.

                                          2
Case: 23-60022         Document: 56-1        Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/04/2024

                                   No. 23-60022

Services (USCIS), and submitted his application for an adjustment of
status to legal permanent resident.
        The BIA denied Membreno-Rodriguezs motion to reopen,
concluding that Membreno-Rodriguez had not demonstrated that he was
eligible for an adjustment of status since, as he had conceded before the IJ, he
is inadmissible under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and, accordingly, ineligible for
adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).
Membreno-Rodriguez timely filed a petition for review of the BIAs
decision,2 arguing that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen based
on the finding that he is inadmissible under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), and
therefore ineligible for status adjustment under § 1255(a).
        We review BIA decisions on motions to reopen under a highly
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295,
303 (5th Cir. 2005). Under that standard, we uphold a BIAs decision so
long as [it] is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in
the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the
result of any perceptible rational approach. Nunez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 499,
505 (5th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). The BIAs conclusions of law are
reviewed de novo, although deference is given to the BIAs reasonable
interpretation of immigration regulations. HernandezCastillo v. Moore, 436
F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir. 2006). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial
evidence. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007). Motions to
reopen are disfavored, and the movant bears a heavy burden of showing
that reopening is warranted. Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 305
(5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

       _____________________
       2
           Membreno-Rodriguez explicitly abandoned the other claims presented in his
petition for review.

                                         3
 Case: 23-60022           Document: 56-1           Page: 4       Date Filed: 03/04/2024

                                        No. 23-60022

        Here, the BIA denied Membreno-Rodriguezs motion to reopen
because it found that he had failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that
he was prima facie eligible for adjustment of status. Parada-Orellana v.
Garland, 21 F.4th 887, 893 (5th Cir. 2022) ([T]he BIA may deny a motion
to reopen . . . [based on] failure to establish a prima facie case for the
underlying relief sought[.]). The BIA based its conclusion on the IJs
finding that Membreno-Rodriguezs parole was terminated when he was
served with the NTA, as well as Membreno-Rodriguezs concession at his
initial appearance before the IJ that he was inadmissible as charged because
he did not possess a valid entry document at the time he sought admission
into the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I); U.S.C. § 1255(a)
(stating that a noncitizens status may be adjusted if he is admissible to the
United States for permanent residence).
        Membreno-Rodriguez does not contest that he admitted to the
allegations in the NTA during his removal proceedings, which included the
charge that he was inadmissible under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I).3 Instead, he
argues that he remains eligible for adjustment of status under § 1255(a) based
on this Courts holdings in Marques v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 549 (5th Cir. 2016)
and Pei-Chen Tien v. INS, 638 F.2d 1324 (5th Cir. 1981). Yet in Marques, this
Court held that the documentation requirements of [§] 1182(a)(7) do not

        _____________________
        3
           Membreno-Rodriguez highlights the BIAs misstatement that his former attorney
conceded that Membreno-Rodriguez was not admitted or paroled into the United States
under § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), when in fact Membreno-Rodriguezs former counsel conceded
the charge of inadmissibility (contained in the NTA) under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I),which
the BIA refers to correctly later in its opinion. Any error on the part of the BIA in misstating
the grounds for Membreno-Rodriguezs inadmissibility is harmless because there is no
realistic possibility that the BIA would have reached a different conclusion absent the
error given that Membreno-Rodriguez concedes that he is inadmissible as charged under
§ 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Vazquez v. Sessions, 885 F.3d 862, 872 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied sub
nom. Rodriguez Vasquez v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2697 (2018) (internal citation removed).

                                               4
 Case: 23-60022         Document: 56-1          Page: 5      Date Filed: 03/04/2024

                                      No. 23-60022

apply to an alien who was previously validly admitted as a nonimmigrant, who
is residing in the United States, and who applies for an adjustment of status.
834 F.3d at 562. Similarly, the petitioner in Pei-Chen, like the petitioner in
Marques, was previously admitted as a nonimmigrant before applying for
adjustment of status. 638 F.2d at 1326. Here, in contrast to the petitioners in
Marques and Pei-Chen, Membreno-Rodriguez was never previously validly
admitted as a nonimmigrant since those who have been paroled are not []
considered to have been admitted to the United States. Marques, 834 F.3d
at 562; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(B) (An alien who is paroled under
[§] 1182(d)(5) of this title . . . shall not be considered to have been
admitted.); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) (providing that parole of such alien
shall not be regarded as admission of the alien); see also Duarte v. Mayorkas,
27 F.4th 1044, 1059 (5th Cir. 2022) ([T]he alien remains an applicant for
admission while on parole.) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)).
      Acknowledging these distinctions, Membreno-Rodriguez asks us to
extend the holdings in Marques and Pei-Chen to petitioners, like himself, who
have been granted parole. But assuming arguendo that we obliged
Membreno-Rodriguezs request, his paroleeven if not terminated by the
NTA4expired on April 27, 2018, well before he sought adjustment of status
in 2020. In any event, Membreno-Rodriguez remained an applicant for
admission at the time he filed his motion to reopenregardless of the status
of his parole. 8 C.F.R. § 1001.1(q) (An arriving alien remains an arriving
alien even if paroled pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act, and even after
any such parole is terminated or revoked.). Because Membreno-Rodriguez
        _____________________
        4
           Membreno-Rodriguez argues that the BIA erred in finding that his parole
terminated upon the service of the NTA, which occurred on April 13, 2017, two weeks prior
to his grant of parole by the DHS on April 27, 2017. Under Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328,
347 (2022), however, we lack jurisdiction to review factual findings made as part of
discretionary-relief proceedings, including an adjustment of status under § 1255.

                                            5
Case: 23-60022       Document: 56-1       Page: 6    Date Filed: 03/04/2024

                                No. 23-60022

conceded, as charged, that he is inadmissible under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), and
his parole had no effect on his status as an applicant for admission into the
United States, substantial evidence supports the BIAs conclusion that
Membreno-Rodriguez is ineligible for adjustment of status under § 1255(a).
Verdugo-Soto v. Lynch, 616 F. Appx 183, 184 (5th Cir. 2015) (An applicant
for adjustment of status under § 1255(i) must establish that he is not
inadmissible under any provision of the Immigration and Nationality
Act[.]). The BIA thus did not abuse its discretion in denying Membreno-
Rodriguezs motion to reopen for failure to meet his heavy burden of
demonstrating his prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status. Gonzalez-
Cantu, 866 F.3d at 305.
       Membreno-Rodriguezs petition for review is DENIED.

                                      6