Charles Eleri v. Jefferson Sessions, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5208

Charles Eleri, a Nigerian, was admitted to the U.S. as a conditional permanent resident in 1995 based on marriage; his conditional status terminated in 1997 for failure to file the required petition.
In 2009 Eleri was convicted of forcible rape; DHS initiated removal proceedings in 2011.
Eleri sought adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(B), which permits a waiver for crimes involving moral turpitude where denial would cause extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse.
The Immigration Judge found Eleri’s rape conviction to be both an aggravated felony and a crime involving moral turpitude and denied the § 1182(h) waiver; the BIA affirmed.
Eleri argued that because his admission was as a conditional (not “full‑fledged”) permanent resident, the aggravated‑felony bar in § 1182(h) does not apply to him.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and considered statutory text, purpose, and controlling administrative precedent in deciding whether a conditional permanent resident falls within the § 1182(h) aggravated‑felony bar.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an alien admitted as a conditional permanent resident is an "alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" for purposes of the § 1182(h) aggravated‑felony bar	Eleri: "Conditional" admission is not the same as permanent residence, so the aggravated‑felony bar does not apply	Government: Conditional permanent residents hold lawful permanent residence (subject to conditions) and thus are covered by § 1182(h)	Court: Conditional permanent residents constitute "aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence"; aggravated‑felony bar applies

Negrete‑Ramirez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir.) (interpretation of who is barred from § 1182(h) waiver)
Hing Sum v. Holder, 602 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting absurd results argument to carve out classes from statutory bars)
Paek v. Attorney General of the United States, 793 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2015) (holds conditional permanent residents are covered by § 1182(h))
Gallimore v. Attorney General of the United States, 619 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2010) (equating conditional and full permanent resident status except where § 1186a imposes specific obligations)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to permissible agency statutory interpretations)
Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (2009) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
Toor v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2015) (applying Chevron deference to BIA interpretations)