Update on 2010 Case Regarding “Inspection and Admission”

A Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) case decided on July 28, 2010, Matter of Graciela Quilantan, 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010), which reaffirmed the prior case of Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980) has recently helped a Sacramento man gain lawful permanent residence.  Quilantan holds: “For purposes of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2006), an alien seeking to show that he or she has been “admitted” to the United States pursuant to section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A) (2006), need only prove procedural regularity in his or her entry, which does not require the alien to be questioned by immigration authorities or be admitted in a particular status.”  Restated, you must show procedural regularity to show that you were admitted, but you need not prove compliance with substantive legal requirements.  Additionally, there must be no knowing false claim to U.S. citizenship.  In the Quilantan case, the applicant was riding in a car going through the U.S. Mexico border, and was waived through.  This was enough to show “procedural regularity” and that she was inspected and admitted, even though substantively, she was inadmissible.  Many would-be immigrants are deemed ineligible to apply for adjustment of status because they have no proof that they were “inspected and admitted” to the U.S.  Please also see my posts below regarding the proposed rule on the provisional waiver for spouses and children of U.S. citizens who have no proof of inspection and admission to the U.S.