"Arriving Aliens" and Adjustment of Status

<This page is under construction>

The LAC submitted the following amicus briefs where the BIA refused to reopen removal proceedings for an “arriving alien” whose adjustment of status application is pending before CIS. The LAC argues that the BIA’s decision violates the INA; the interim regulations regarding adjustment of status for arriving aliens, see 71 Fed. Reg. 27585 (May 12, 2006); and Board precedent.

• Wang v. Gonzales                                              2nd Circuit       No. 05-2894-ag
• Budrys v. Gonzales                                            4th Circuit        No. 06-2187
• Rudolf v. United States Attorney General           11th Circuit      No. 06-15971-E
• Zia v. Gonzales                                                  9th Circuit        No. 06-74211
• Lamei et. al v. Gonzales                         11th Circuit      No. 06-14833-AA
• Liu v. Gonzales                                                  1st Circuit        No. 07-1787

The LAC argued in these amicus letter briefs to USCIS that the agency has jurisdiction to adjust the status of an arriving alien parolee who is in removal proceedings or who is under a final order of removal, pursuant to interim regulations adopted May 12, 2006.

• Richard Z.               Seattle, WA              USCIS office 
• Siamak L.                Atlanta, GA              USCIS office
• Gjystina P.              Detroit, MI                 USCIS Office
• Roody F.                 Baltimore, MD          USCIS Office
• Tabian B.                Springfield, MA        USCIS Office
• Juan D.                   Charleston, SC       USCIS Office
• Jose A.                   Brownsville, TX        USCIS Office

The LAC’s amicus briefs challenged a regulation that barred all “arriving aliens” – which includes the majority of parolees – from adjusting status if they were in removal proceedings. This regulation was subsequently withdrawn due to this litigation. See 71 Fed. Reg.27585 (2006).

•             Succar v. Ashcroft                                 1st Circuit        No. 03-2445
•             Li v. Gonzales                                        2nd Circuit       Nos. 03-41059; 04-0902
•             Sanchez-Montoya v. Gonzales                2nd Circuit       No. 04-1071
•             Singh v. Gonzales                                  2nd Circuit       No. 04-0136
•             Zheng v. Ashcroft                                  3rd Circuit        No. 03-3634
•             Anteojo v. Gonzales                               5th Circuit        No. 03-60838
•             Diarra v. Gonzales                                 5th Circuit        No. 04-60097
•             Meza-Cota v. Gonzales                           6th Circuit        No. 05-4523
•             Ermelinda Poci v. Gonzales                    7th Circuit        No. 05-4680
•             Imam v. Gonzales                                 7th Circuit        No. 05-3787
•             Mouelle v. Gonzales                               8th Circuit        Nos. 03-1760; 03-3086
•             Bona v. Ashcroft                                    9th Circuit        Nos. 03-71596, 03-72488
•             Hong v. Gonzales                                  9th Circuit        No. 04-74034
•             Jiang v. Gonzales                                   9th Circuit        No. 03-71837
•             Roozeky v. Ashcroft                               9th Circuit        No. 04-71540
•             Delphin v. Gonzales                               11th Circuit      No. 05-14941
•             Garcia v. Gonzales                                 11th Circuit      No. 05-12059
•             Sampedro v. Gonzales                           11th Circuit      No. 05-13390
•             Shah v. Gonzales                                  11th Circuit      No. 05-10587