Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case concerning a Jordanian citizen, the appellate court reviewed the denial of adjustment of status under Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The petitioner initially entered the United States on a student visa and became a conditional permanent resident through a 1986 I-130 petition filed by his spouse. This status was terminated due to failure to remove conditions. Subsequent petitions filed by his mother did not lead to a lawful permanent residency adjustment, and an I-485 petition filed in 2007 was denied due to ineligibility under Section 245(a). The petitioner argued for eligibility under Section 245(i), citing a grandfather provision for petitions filed before April 30, 2001. However, the USCIS and BIA ruled that the previously utilized 1986 petition could not be reused for grandfathering, a decision upheld by the Eighth Circuit. The BIA's interpretation was deemed consistent with statutory and regulatory frameworks, receiving deference under Skidmore. The court affirmed the BIA's findings, concluding that the petitioner exhausted the benefits of the earlier petition, thus rendering him ineligible for further adjustment under the grandfathered status provisions of Section 245(i). The petition for review was denied, affirming the BIA's denial of adjustment of status.
Legal Issues Addressed
Adjustment of Status under 8 U.S.C. 1255(i)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that Mansour was ineligible for adjustment of status under Section 245(i) because the 1986 petition, previously used for obtaining conditional permanent residency, could not be reused for grandfathering purposes.
Reasoning: The USCIS denied his petition, ruling he could not rely on the 1986 petition since it had already been used for a previous adjustment.
Chevron and Skidmore Deferencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered whether the BIA's unpublished decision should receive deference, concluding that while Chevron deference may not apply, Skidmore deference was appropriate due to the thoroughness and consistency of the BIA's reasoning.
Reasoning: Even if Chevron deference is not applicable, the BIA's decision may receive a lesser form of deference under Skidmore, which considers factors such as the thoroughness and validity of the reasoning.
Grandfathering Provision under Section 245(i)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA found that once an alien adjusts their status through a petition, their grandfathered status ceases, which was affirmed by the court as consistent with statutory interpretation.
Reasoning: However, once an alien successfully adjusts their status under section 245(i), their grandfathered status ceases, as they have achieved the intended benefit of lawful permanent resident (LPR) status.
Interpretation of 8 C.F.R. 245.10(a)(3)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA's interpretation that a petition previously used for adjustment extinguishes grandfathered status under Section 245(i) was upheld, aligning with regulatory provisions that do not explicitly address previously approved petitions.
Reasoning: While Mansour believes he qualifies under this regulation, it does not explicitly address previously approved petitions, rendering it ambiguous as well.