Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2023) Interim Decision #4059 Matter of Jorge Alberto DUARTE-GONZALEZ, Respondent Decided February 14, 2023 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Noncitizens who are inadmissible for a specified period of time pursuant to section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i), due to their previous unlawful presence and departure are not required to reside outside the United States during this period in order to subsequently overcome this ground of inadmissibility. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Jaime M. Diez, Esquire, Brownsville, Texas FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Guillermo Rey de la Garza, Assistant Chief Counsel BEFORE: Board Panel: HUNSUCKER and LIEBOWITZ, Appellate Immigration Judges; BROWN, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge. HUNSUCKER, Appellate Immigration Judge: The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals from the Immigration Judge’s April 3, 2019, decision denying him adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). 1 The Department of Homeland Security opposes the appeal. The appeal will be sustained, and the record will be remanded. The respondent was admitted to the United States in June 2000 and was authorized to remain in the United States for a temporary period not to exceed 30 days. However, the respondent did not depart the United States until August 2001. The respondent was subsequently admitted to the United States later in August 2001 on a nonimmigrant visa (border crossing card) with authorization to remain in the United States for a temporary period not to exceed 30 days. Since that admission, the respondent has remained in the 1 The Immigration Judge also denied the respondent’s claim for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The respondent does not meaningfully challenge the Immigration Judge’s denial of cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we deem the issue waived. See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (holding that when a noncitizen fails to substantively appeal an issue addressed in the Immigration Judge’s decision, that issue is deemed waived). The Immigration Judge granted the respondent’s alternative request for voluntary departure under section 240B(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b). 688 Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2023) Interim Decision #4059 United States without any further authorization to remain. The respondent conceded that he is subject to removal from the United States under section 237(a)(1)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), as charged in his notice to appear. The Immigration Judge considered whether the respondent is eligible for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), because his United States citizen son, who was 21 years old at that time, could file a visa petition for his benefit as an immediate relative under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i). The Immigration Judge concluded that the respondent is not eligible for adjustment of status because he did not remain outside the United …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals