Immigration – removal — waiver

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Immigration – removal — waiver

Section 212(h) precludes a waiver only for those persons who, at the time they lawfully entered into the United States, had attained the status of lawful permanent residents.

“The Board has refused to follow those circuits, and applies a different interpretation in all circuits but the ones which have specifically addressed the issue and held otherwise. Urging us to follow the lead of the Board rather than the other circuits, the government argues that the definition of ‘admitted’ is not dispositive here, because the INA also provides that when a person’s status is adjusted, that person is ‘lawfully admitted for permanent residence’ as of that date of adjustment and that date constitutes the date of admission. Relying on that statutory provision, the government argues that a person is ‘admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence’ as of the date at which the person attains permanent resident status, because that constitutes a date of admission. That argument, however, would render irrelevant the first part of that § 212(h) provision. The provision does not preclude waiver for any person who was lawfully admitted for permanent residence; instead, it precludes waiver only for those persons who had ‘previously been admitted to the United States as a person lawfully admitted for permanent residence.’ [emphasis added] The government’s interpretation would conflate the two requirements, and preclude waiver whenever a person was lawfully admitted for permanent residence. We will not interpret a statute in a manner that renders part of it irrelevant, particularly where, as here, the statute has an unambiguous meaning if we simply apply the definition provided in the statute itself. We agree with the other circuits that have held that by its plain language, § 212(h) waiver is precluded only when the person was a lawful permanent resident at the time of his or her lawful entry into the United States. Because Papazoglou entered the United States on a visitor’s visa and was not a lawful permanent resident at that time, he does not fall within that language and therefore is not precluded from consideration for the waiver.”

Affirmed.

12-2372 Papazoglou v. Holder

On Petition For Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Rovner, J.