Samra Adel v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting U.S. Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1628
SAMRA ADEL,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD BLANCHE, Acting U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 29, 2026 Decided: July 16, 2026
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Alaina M. Taylor, MURRAY OSORIO PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia for
Petitioner. Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Erica B. Miles, Assistant
Director, Vanessa M. Otero, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Samra Adel (“Petitioner”), a former refugee from Afghanistan and citizen of
Canada, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge’s decision finding her inadmissible and
ordering her removal.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s factual challenge to the BIA’s finding
that she made willful misrepresentations in an attempt to gain admission to the United
States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D) (recognizing that where a petitioner is
inadmissible “by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in [8 U.S.C. §]
1182(a)(2)” – as Petitioner is here -- we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of
removal except for “review of constitutional questions or questions of law”).
And though we may consider Petitioner’s argument that the BIA committed legal
error when it found her inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(i), we discern
no legal error in the BIA’s decision. Petitioner concedes that she was removed pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) on March 12, 2000, and that she subsequently sought admission on
March 28, 2000. Because § 1182(a)(9)(A)(i) provides that a noncitizen “ordered removed
under section 1225(b)(1) of this title . . . who again seeks admission within 5 years of the
date of such removal . . . is inadmissible,” the BIA did not commit legal error. Nor did the
BIA’s decision transform § 1182(a)(9)(A)(i)’s five year period of inadmissibility into a
lifetime ban. The BIA simply determined that Petitioner was within the five year period
of inadmissibility when she was charged with being inadmissible in December 2001.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --