Tienda-Ramos v. Gonzales

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 21, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60350
Summary Calendar
CARLOS ENRIQUE TIENDA-RAMOS,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A79 549 429)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tienda-Ramos, a native of Mexico illegally present in the United States, petitions
for review of a final order of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). Reviewing the BIA’s conclusions

-- 1 of 3 --

1 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778
(1984).
2 See Acosta v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 550, 556 (9th Cir. 2006).
2
of law de novo while granting Chevron1 deference to its reasonable interpretations of the
Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”), Mortera-Cruz v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 246,
250 (5th Cir. 2005), we deny review for the following reasons:
1. Tienda-Ramos seeks adjustment of status from that of an illegal alien
physically present in the United States to that of a lawful permanent
resident under INA § 245(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s
denial of Tienda-Ramos’s application for status adjustment because, having
reentered the country without admission after prior unlawful presence for
an aggregate period of more than a year, Tienda-Ramos is inadmissible
under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), a grounds of
inadmissibility for which there is no waiver.
2. We have previously upheld as reasonable the BIA’s interpretation that
compliance with the requirements of INA § 245(i) does not cure
inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). Mortera-Cruz, 409 F.3d at
256. We are aware that the Ninth Circuit holds that INA § 245(i) trumps
inadmissibility stemming from the aggregate of one year of unlawful
presence under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I),2 but that is not the law in this
circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
3. We have also previously rejected Tienda-Ramos’s argument that permitting
§ 245(i) waiver of certain § 212 grounds of inadmissability while denying
waiver for § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) runs afoul of equal protection safeguards,
finding one-violation aliens and multiple-violation aliens dissimilarly
situated. Mortera-Cruz, 409 F.3d at 255-56.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --