Case: 18-14494 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-14494 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A076-253-006 SWARAN SINGH, Petitioner, versus UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 2, 2019) Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-14494 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 2 of 5 Swaran Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order of removal and denial of his application for adjustment of status pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 245, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. He argues that in denying his application for adjustment of status, both the BIA and Immigration Judge (“IJ”) incorrectly concluded that he was not eligible for that relief under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), on the basis that he falsely claimed that he was a United States citizen in a 2007 application for a Georgia Driver’s license. He principally contends that his false claim of citizenship was not material to obtaining a Georgia driver’s license valid for ten years because he was eligible for a temporary driver’s license by virtue of his valid and renewable employment authorization document (“EAD”). When the BIA issues its own decision, we review only that decision, except where, as here, the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion. See Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007). We review de novo whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to consider a petition for review. Alvarado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 610 F.3d 1311, 1314 (11th Cir. 2010). Generally, we lack jurisdiction to review any claim by an alien regarding the granting of discretionary relief, including adjustment of status. INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). When this jurisdictional bar 2 Case: 18-14494 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 3 of 5 applies, the BIA’s factual determinations are unreviewable. Jean-Pierre v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 500 F.3d 1315, 1320 (11th Cir. 2007). However, we do retain jurisdiction over constitutional claims or questions of law, which are reviewed de novo. INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009). Specifically, we retain jurisdiction to review non-discretionary legal decisions that pertain to statutory eligibility for discretionary relief. Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 562 F.3d 1137, 1143 (11th Cir. 2009). Such questions require only the application of facts to the relevant law. Id. Eligibility for adjustment of status, which includes the admissibility determination, is a reviewable legal conclusion. See Alvarez Acosta v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 524 F.3d 1191, 1197 n.14 (11th Cir. 2008) (describing the BIA’s determination that a petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status because he was inadmissible as a legal conclusion). To qualify for adjustment of status, an alien must demonstrate that he is admissible to the United States for permanent residence. INA § 245(a)(2), ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals