Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Justice
. ,
A 074-083-669
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
DoYlltL
C(2J'V't.)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Pauley, Roger
Cole, Patricia A.
Wendtland, Linda S.
Usertea m: Docket
Cite as: Rogelio Picazo Romero, A074 083 669 (BIA Feb. 18, 2016)
Dobbs, Jered
Verdin Law Firm
900 Jackson St, Ste. 535
Dallas, TX 75202
Date:
FEB 1 8 2016
Sec.
237(a)(l)(A), l&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(A)] Inadmissible at time of entry or adjustment of status under section
212(a)(6)(C)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)] Fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact
237(a)(l)(A), l&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(A)] Inadmissible at time of entry or adjustment of status under section
212(a)(7)(B)(i)(II), l&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(B)(i)(II)] Nonimmigrant - no valid nonimmigrant visa or border crossing card
Cite as: Rogelio Picazo Romero, A074 083 669 (BIA Feb. 18, 2016)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
2
Cite as: Rogelio Picazo Romero, A074 083 669 (BIA Feb. 18, 2016)
(i)(I) is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or
of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; and
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion and for the entry of a new decision.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent's appeal is moot.
3
Cite as: Rogelio Picazo Romero, A074 083 669 (BIA Feb. 18, 2016)
File:
A074-083-669
In the Matter of
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPLICATION:
The respondent
he adjusted status.
The respondent is statutorily ineligible for the relief
sought because he originally obtained LPR status through
adjustment rather through consular processing.
application for a waiver under Section 237(a) {1} (H) of the Act.
No
Clearly
R. WAYNE KIMBALL
Immigration Judge
1 In addition to the ineligibility noted, I will take note that there
is possible a second reason why the respondent is statutorily
ineligible and that simply relates to the fact that there never was a
valid visa in the first place. In most of the cases in which a 24l(f)
waiver or a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver have been found, have been cases
where, for example, there was a valid visa in existence but there was
an age-out issue where some inadvertent, whether the respondent was
aware or not, and therefore there was a fraud or there was not a
fraud, there was an actual visa in existence. That is not the case
here. There never was a visa in existence here and so it is an open
question in my mind whether he could have got this waiver in any event
because the statute, 237(a) (1) (H), specifically says that it operates
to waive 212(a)(7) only to the extent that 212(a)(7) is "a direct
result of the fraud or misrepresentation." Here, the 212(a)(7) is not
a direct result of the fraud or misrepresentation; it is a result of
the fact that he simply did not have an immigrant visa either through
employment or through family. He simply did not have a visa and so I
am not going to make a ruling on that one way or the other. I simply
note that it is an outstanding issue, but I am not going to make a
decision on that issue. Potentially, it is a second reason why he
could not get this waiver.
A074-083-669
/Isl/
A074-083-669