Edwin Rosete Reganit v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3269

Edwin Rosete Reganit, a Filipino national, entered the U.S. on May 27, 2001 on a C-1/D crewman visa to work as a butcher on a cruise ship.
While serving as crew he fell ill and was granted a temporary medical parole into the U.S. under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5); the ship’s employer arranged and paid for his treatment and custody while ashore. He returned to the ship after initial treatment and later resigned; the employer arranged travel back to the Philippines but Reganit remained in the U.S. and married a U.S. citizen.
In 2005 Reganit filed for adjustment of status based on marriage; CIS granted lawful permanent resident status that year. In 2011 he applied for naturalization.
CIS later concluded his original entry was as an alien crewman and that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c), crewmen are barred from adjusting status; CIS therefore determined his prior adjustment was legally invalid and denied naturalization.
Reganit sued under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). The district court granted summary judgment to the government, concluding medical parole under the relevant regulation did not change his crewman status. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a crewman who is medically paroled while ashore ceases to be an "alien crewman" for purposes of the statutory bar on adjustment of status	Reganit: medical parole for treatment removed his status as a crewman, so his 2005 adjustment was valid	Government: parole under 8 C.F.R. § 253.1(e) does not alter crewman status; crewmen are barred from adjustment by § 1255(c)	Held for Government: medical parole did not change his crewman status; he was statutorily ineligible for adjustment and thus naturalization was properly denied

United States v. Jean-Baptiste, 395 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Liese v. Indian River Cty. Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334 (11th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment burden and inference rules)
Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (1961) (observing the value of American citizenship)
Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981) (naturalization requirements must be satisfied; prior status flaws can preclude relief)
Savoury v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 449 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.) (mistaken adjustments that violate substantive law do not confer "lawfully admitted for permanent residence")
Parzagonis v. I.N.S., 747 F.2d 1389 (11th Cir.) (focus for crewman classification is whether entry was in pursuit of seaman calling)