Asim Chaudhry v. Eric Holder, Jr.
705 F.3d 289
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Chaudhry, a Pakistani citizen, entered the U.S. on a B-1 visa in 2003 and later switched to L-1 status through a company petition.
- Chaudhry and Amtal filed an I-140 and concurrent I-485 in January 2004; a second pair were filed in June 2005 but denied in December 2005 because Chaudhry leftAmtal.
- Chaudhry began a third adjustment petition in May 2006 with Sarus Oil’s support; CIS denied the I-485 in March 2008 due to >180 days of unlawful status after January 21, 2005.
- Chaudhry argued he remained in lawful status through December 13, 2005, because of pending adjustments, which would toll unlawful presence.
- Immigration Judge and Board accepted that unlawful presence and lawful status are distinct; Board concluded pendency did not keep him lawful for §1255(k).
- Chaudhry pursued review; the issue centered on what constitutes “lawful status” for §1255(k) and whether prior applications toll status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'lawful status' for §1255(k) | Chaudhry maintains ongoing pending adjustments keep him in lawful status. | Regulatory definition of 'lawful immigration status' controls, not pending applications. | Regulatory definition controls; pending applications do not extend lawful status. |
| Whether pending adjustments toll accrual of unlawful status | Pending adjustments should toll unlawful status for §1255(k) purposes. | Tolling does not apply; status ends as of expiration date. | Chaudhry's status did not toll; accepted that tolling does not apply as argued. |
| Exhaustion of parole tolling argument | Parole could toll the accrual of days without status under §245.1(d)(1)(iv). | No exhaustion; not raised below; regulation not invoked. | Not reached; petition denied due to exhaustion issue; no ruling on parole tolling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes)
- In re L-K, 23 I. & N. Dec. 677 (BIA 2004) (distinguishes lawful presence from lawful status)
- Sarmiento v. Holder, 680 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2012) (exhaustion requirement for appealing administrative issues)