NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS LOPEZ-ESPINDOLA, No. 17-71514 Petitioner, Agency No. A034-014-376 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 14, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,*** District Judge. Petitioner Jose Luis Lopez-Espindola, a citizen of Mexico and former Lawful Permanent Resident (“LPR”) of the United States, seeks review of a Board * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision ordering his removal and denying his application for adjustment of status. The BIA and two immigration judges (“IJs”) found Petitioner removable as an alien “who is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit . . . or other valid entry document.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I); see id. § 1227(a)(1)(A). Petitioner makes two arguments against removal. First, he argues that the Government is estopped from “relitigating” the validity of his LPR card and status because an IJ upheld the same when the IJ terminated a prior removal proceeding in 1990. Second, he claims that the record contains insufficient evidence of removability. As to the first argument, the validity of Petitioner’s LPR status was not at issue in the 1990 removal proceeding, which was initiated based on a charge of “Entry Without Inspection” in violation of former INA § 241(a)(2). A.R. 245. See Immigration and Nationality (McCarran-Walter) Act, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 241(a)(2), 66 Stat. 163, 204 (1952) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(B) (1994)). In Reid v. INS, the Supreme Court held that former INA “Section 241(a)(2) establishes as a separate ground for deportation, quite independently of whether the alien was excludable at the time of his arrival, the failure of an alien to present himself for inspection at the time he made his entry.” 420 U.S. 619, 623 (1975). Put another way, an alien may avoid deportation under 2 former INA § 241(a)(2) merely by presenting himself for inspection, regardless of whether he possesses a valid visa or immigration status. See Matter of Areguillin, 17 I. & N. Dec. 308, 309-10 (BIA 1980). Accordingly, the IJ’s order dismissing the charge of “Entry Without Inspection” established only that Petitioner entered the United States after inspection by an immigration officer. See A.R. 254-60. It did not affirmatively uphold Petitioner’s LPR status and does not prevent the Government from challenging the validity of Petitioner’s LPR card. Second, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Petitioner is removable. At a January 22, 2013 hearing, Petitioner admitted through counsel that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals