TABLE OF CONTENTS

Adjustment of Status

Admissions, Visa Overstays, & Inadmissibility

**Matter of Graciela QUILANTAN,** 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010)

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. Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980), reaffirmed.

Matter of Jorge Alberto DUARTE-GONZALEZ, 28 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2023)

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.

REMOVING CONDITIONS ON RESIDENCY

Understanding Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude in U.S. Immigration Law: A Guide to Key Sources

I. Matter of Ernst SOLON, 24 I&N Dec. 239 (BIA 2007)

• II. Issue: This section introduces the central question at hand: whether a conviction for third-degree assault under New York law qualifies as a "crime involving moral turpitude" (CIMT) for immigration purposes.
• III. Analysis: This section delves into the BIA's established definition of moral turpitude, highlighting its connection to conduct that is inherently wrong and shocks the public conscience. It examines factors like intent, recklessness, and the nature of the act itself in assessing moral turpitude, offering examples of crimes typically considered CIMTs. The BIA emphasizes that not all assault convictions necessarily demonstrate moral depravity, as some assault statutes encompass minor offenses.

II. Argueta v. Holder, 1st Cir. No. 07-1736 (2009)

• Jurisdiction to Review: This excerpt focuses on the court's role in scrutinizing arguments presented in immigration appeals to determine whether they have jurisdiction to review the case. It emphasizes the court's independent duty to assess its own jurisdiction, even when a petitioner claims the court should have it.