Cruz-Miguel v. Holder, 650 F.3d 189

Petitioners Cruz-Miguel, Sanchez-Flores, Miguel-Ramirez, and Francisco-Lorenzo are Mexican/Guatemalan nationals who entered the U.S. illegally at the southwest border between 1998 and 2003.
DHS placed them in removal proceedings after notices to appear alleging removability under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i).
They were released from DHS custody on conditional parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(B) while their removability determinations were pending.
The Immigration Judge and the BIA each held that conditional parole did not satisfy the 'paroled into the United States' requirement of § 1255(a) for adjustment of status.
Petitioners sought review, arguing that their conditional parole equates to parole into the U.S. for purposes of § 1255(a).
The Second Circuit affirmed, denying relief and concluding that conditional parole does not constitute parole into the United States under § 1255(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 'paroled into the United States' in §1255(a) includes conditional parole under §1226(a)(2)(B).	Cruz-Miguel et al. argue conditional parole satisfies §1255(a).	HOLDER argues 'paroled into the United States' requires parole under §1182(d)(5)(A), not §1226(a)(2)(B) conditional parole.	Conditional parole is not 'paroled into the United States' for §1255(a).

Delgado-Sobalvarro v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S., 625 F.3d 782 (3d Cir. 2010) (deference to Castillo-Padilla on parity of parole definitions)
Ortega-Cervantes v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2007) (distinguishes parole types and supports Chevron deference)
Castillo-Padilla v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 25 I. & N. Dec. 257 (B.I.A. 2010) (held that 'conditional parole' is distinct from 'parole' and not §1255(a) eligibility)
Mizrahi v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2007) (statutory interpretation principles applied to §1255(a) and §1255(i))
Mora v. Mukasey, 550 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2008) (limits adjustment eligibility for inadmissible aliens and informs textual reading)