FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALI FARES, No. 13-71916 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A047-654-200 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 22, 2019 Honolulu, Hawaii Filed November 25, 2019 Before: Susan P. Graber, Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Graber 2 FARES V. BARR SUMMARY* Immigration Granting Ali Fares’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that concluded that he was ineligible for a waiver of removability under section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the panel held that a noncitizen who seeks a § 237(a)(1)(H) waiver is “otherwise admissible” even though he failed to return to his country of origin for at least two years, as required by INA § 212(e), and remanded. Petitioner entered the United States as a nonimmigrant J-1 exchange visitor and was subject to INA § 212(e), under which he was ineligible to apply for an immigrant visa, permanent residence, or two types of nonimmigrant visas until he had departed from the United States and then had resided and been physically present in his country of nationality or of last residence for at least two years. Petitioner failed to fulfill this requirement, but was later admitted as a lawful permanent resident in 2000. In his application for admission, Petitioner inaccurately checked “no” in response to a question asking if he was an alien who had not fulfilled the two-year residency requirement. The immigration authorities did not notice the falsity at that time, but when Petitioner later applied for naturalization, his application was denied on the ground that he had not been “lawfully admitted” as a permanent resident because he had not satisfied the residency requirement of § 212(e). * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. FARES V. BARR 3 In removal proceedings, an immigration judge found Petitioner removable because, at the time of his application for admission, he did not possess valid entry documents. He sought a waiver of removability under INA § 237(a)(1)(H), which provides a waiver for certain fraud or misrepresentation and, among other things, required Petitioner to have been “otherwise admissible” when he entered in 2000. The IJ and BIA held that petitioner was not “otherwise admissible” at that time because he had neither satisfied the residency requirement of § 212(e) nor obtained a waiver of it. The panel explained that this court has held that “otherwise admissible” means not excludable on some ground other than the entry fraud. Therefore, to qualify for a § 237(a)(1)(H) waiver, Petitioner had to have been “admissible” when he entered in 2000, notwithstanding his entry fraud. The panel also observed that the INA defines “admission” and “admitted” as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals