MENDEZ MALDONADO

page
62
Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 62 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4247
Matter of Tirso MENDEZ MALDONADO, Respondent
Decided September 22, 2026
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
(1) The respondent’s admission to possessing and using cocaine makes him inadmissible
under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (2024), and hence ineligible for adjustment of status.
(2) Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), does not
require that the alien be informed of the precise statutory definition with the essential
elements of the offense in question prior to making an admission. Matter of K-, 7 I&N
Dec. 594 (BIA 1957), and Matter of J-, 2 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 1945), overruled.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Eric G. Bjotvedt, Esquire, Phoenix, Arizona
BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS, Chief Appellate Immigration Judge; CREPPY and
CHABAN, Appellate Immigration Judges.
CREPPY, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals from the
Immigration Judge’s October 28, 2019, decision denying his application for
adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2018). We will dismiss the appeal.
Under section 245(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), the Attorney
General may adjust an alien’s status to that of a permanent resident if the
alien was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States, has an
immigrant 	visa 	immediately 	available 	at 	the 	time 	the 	application 	for
adjustment of status is filed, and is admissible to the United States for
permanent residence. The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent
is ineligible for adjustment of status because his admitted possession and use
of cocaine renders him inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (2018).
Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)
(2024), provides:
[A]ny alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits
committing acts which constitute the essential elements of . . . a violation of (or a
conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States,

Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 62 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4247
page
63
or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), is inadmissible.
DHS 	submitted 	into 	evidence 	the 	respondent’s 	Record 	of 	Sworn
Statement, which was executed by a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (“USCIS”) officer on September 27, 2016, at the respondent’s
USCIS interview for adjustment of status in Tucson, Arizona.1 	The
respondent admitted in his sworn testimony that he possessed and used
cocaine in Arizona. Relying on this admission, the Immigration Judge found
that the respondent admitted to committing a crime relating to a controlled
substance and is thus inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(2)(A)(i)(II).
The respondent argues on appeal that his admission is invalid because he
was not provided with a definition or the essential elements of the offense
prior to his admission as required under Matter of K-, 7 I&N Dec. 594, 597
(BIA 1957). 	Under Matter of K-, “a valid admission of a crime for
immigration purposes requires that the alien be given an adequate definition
of the crime, including all essential elements, and that it be explained in
understandable terms.” Id. To the extent that Matter of K- is interpreted to
require that a precise legal definition, including the essential elements of the
crime, be provided to the alien in advance of an admission, such a rule
exceeds what is required under the plain language of the statute to obtain a
valid 	admission 	for 	immigration 	purposes. 	Matter 	of 	K- 	expressly
acknowledged this when stating the rule. Id. Matter of K- relied in large part
on the principles governing admissions that were articulated in Matter of J-,
2 I&N Dec. 285, 287–88 (BIA 1945) (listing six requirements for obtaining
an admission). 	As the Board then recognized, the standards established in
these two cases exceeded any statutory or regulatory requirements. The plain
language 	of 	section 	212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) 	of 	the 	INA, 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), does not require that the alien be informed of the
precise statutory definition with the essential elements of the offense in
question prior to making an admission. All that is required for an alien to be
inadmissible 	under 	section 	212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) 	of 	the 	INA, 	8 	U.S.C.
1 	The respondent argues that the sworn statement is unreliable because it is in English
and lacks a certificate of Spanish translation. We discern no error in its admission. The
document indicates that the interview was conducted with a Spanish interpreter, and
government officials enjoy a “presumption of regularity” in the performance of their
official duties. See Cruz v. Bondi, 146 F.4th 730, 739 (9th Cir. 2025) (“Courts have long
presumed that official acts of public officers, in the absence of clear evidence to the
contrary, properly discharged their official duties.”) (citation modified).

Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 62 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4247
page
64
§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), is that the alien admits to committing acts which
constitute the essential elements of a controlled substance offense.2
We acknowledge that the standards in Matter of K- were adopted for the
purpose of ensuring that an alien receives “fair play” and to preclude any
possible later claim by the alien that they were “unwittingly entrapped” into
making an admission. 	Matter of K-, 7 I&N Dec. at 597. 	However, the
respondent was not “unwittingly entrapped” into making an admission such
that “fair play” is a concern as he testified voluntarily, under oath, and during
the course of applying for adjustment of status. 	Requiring that an alien be
informed of a statutory definition, including the elements of a crime, in
advance of an admission is not necessary to ensure fairness in removal
proceedings. 	An alien receives proper legal safeguards when provided a
fundamentally fair hearing in their removal proceedings. 	See Shaughnessy
v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953) (stating that
immigration proceedings must conform “to traditional standards of fairness
encompassed in due process of law”); see also Matter of Exilus, 18 I&N
Dec. 276, 281 (BIA 1982) (stating that “the constitutional requirements of
due process are satisfied by a full and fair hearing”).
As long as the alien’s admission is voluntary and the alien receives a fair
hearing, there is no denial of due process. See Shaughnessy v. United States
ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212 (“Whatever the procedure authorized by
Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.”
(quoting United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 544
(1953)). 	Moreover, the Board does not have the authority to impose
standards regarding an alien’s admissibility beyond those set forth in our
immigration laws. 	See Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 357, 365 (2021)
(recognizing that “a reviewing court is generally not free to impose additional
judge-made procedural requirements on agencies that Congress has not
prescribed and the Constitution does not compel” (citation omitted)). 	We
will therefore overrule Matter of K-, 7 I&N Dec. at 594, and Matter of J-,
2 I&N Dec. at 285.
The transcript of the respondent’s sworn statement reflects that the
USCIS officer informed the respondent that section 13-3408(A)(1) of the
Arizona Revised Statutes prohibits the possession or use of a narcotic drug
and that section 13-3401 of the Arizona Revised Statutes defines cocaine as
2 	Whether the offense concerns a crime involving moral turpitude under section
212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(2)(A)(i)(I) (2024), or a controlled
substance under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(2)(A)(i)(II),
the analysis for obtaining a valid admission, as described herein, is the same.

Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 62 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4247
page
65
a narcotic drug.3 The USCIS officer also made the respondent aware of the
essential elements of section 13-3408(A)(1) of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
The USCIS officer explained that it was against the law in Arizona to possess
cocaine, to carry cocaine on your person, and to use cocaine. 	The USCIS
officer also asked the respondent if he knew that it was illegal to commit such
acts in Arizona. 	After the USCIS officer provided these explanations, the
respondent admitted that he knew using cocaine in Arizona was illegal and
that he purchased cocaine from people on the street to consume at his home
and outside of his home. 	The respondent also admitted to using cocaine
monthly for a period of 2 years. The respondent additionally admitted that
he was arrested for using cocaine.
While the USCIS officer essentially complied with the requirements of
Matter of K-, the USCIS officer’s interview of the respondent exceeded what
is required to obtain an admission under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). 	The respondent’s admission to the
USCIS officer that he possessed and used cocaine during his interview was
sufficient to find him inadmissible for committing acts which constitute the
essential elements of a law relating to a controlled substance under section
212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), even if he
was not given a definition of the offense with the essential elements of the
crime prior to making the admission.
The respondent claims his statements to the USCIS officer do not
constitute an admission because he did not provide a responsive answer to
whether 	he 	understood 	what 	constitutes 	a 	violation 	of 	Arizona 	law
prohibiting the possession or use of cocaine. We discern no clear error in the
Immigration Judge’s finding that the respondent was aware that using
cocaine in Arizona was against the law. As found by the Immigration Judge,
the respondent replied “correct” when the USCIS officer asked him if he
knew what constituted a cocaine violation in Arizona. Additionally, as found
by the Immigration Judge, the respondent replied “that is correct” when the
USCIS officer asked if he knew that using cocaine was illegal in Arizona.
Accordingly, we conclude the respondent’s statements to the USCIS officer
concerning his repeated possession and use of cocaine are a valid admission
to committing acts that constitute the essential elements of a law relating to
a 	controlled 	substance, 	rendering 	him 	inadmissible 	under 	section
212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II).
3 	Section 13-3408(a)(1) of the Arizona Revised Statutes provides that “a person shall not
knowingly . . . [p]ossess or use a narcotic drug.”

Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 62 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4247
page
66
Alternatively, an admission of criminal conduct elicited during testimony
before an Immigration Judge constitutes a valid admission for purposes of
section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). The
respondent conceded during his removal proceedings before the Immigration
Judge, while being questioned under oath in the presence of his attorney, that
he possessed and used cocaine. The respondent’s admission in Immigration
Court to possessing and using cocaine provides a separate and independent
basis 	for 	affirming 	the 	Immigration 	Judge’s 	determination 	that 	the
respondent is inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the INA,
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). 	See Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales,
487 F.3d 742, 749 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that the procedural safeguards
established in Matter of J- and Matter of K- are not applicable to testimony
given under oath in Immigration Court while represented by counsel).
In 	view 	of 	the 	foregoing, 	we 	affirm 	the 	Immigration 	Judge’s
determination that the respondent’s admission to possessing and using
cocaine makes him inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), and hence ineligible for adjustment of
status.
Accordingly, the following order will be entered.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: 	If a respondent is subject to a final order of removal and
willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States pursuant to the
order, to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents
necessary to depart the United States, or to present himself or herself at the
time and place required for removal by DHS, or conspires to or takes any
action designed to prevent or hamper the respondent’s departure pursuant to
the order of removal, the respondent shall be subject to a civil monetary
penalty of up to $998 for each day the respondent is in violation. See section
274D of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1324d (2024); 8 C.F.R. § 280.53(b)(14) (2026).
Further, any respondent that has been denied admission to, removed from, or
has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or
removal is outstanding and thereafter enters, attempts to enter, or is at any
time found in the United States shall be fined or imprisoned not more than
2 years, or both. See INA § 276(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2024).