Eugeniusz Wojciechowicz v. Merrick B. Garland, 77 F.4th 511

Eugeniusz Wojciechowicz, a Polish citizen and U.S. lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in 2011 to multiple theft-related offenses (crimes involving moral turpitude).
In March 2019 he left for Poland and was denied reentry at O'Hare as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); ICE initiated removal proceedings.
An IJ denied his waiver request; the BIA affirmed in November 2019, making the removal order final.
In November 2020 Governor Pritzker granted a state pardon; Wojciechowicz filed to stay removal and to reopen proceedings the same day; the BIA stayed but ICE removed him in violation of the stay.
The BIA later denied reopening as untimely and held a state pardon does not render an otherwise inadmissible noncitizen admissible under the INA; Wojciechowicz petitioned for review.
The Seventh Circuit denied review, finding no abuse of discretion on timeliness and that the INA’s text/1990 amendments preclude giving pardons that effect for admissibility; equal-protection arguments failed under rational-basis review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of motion to reopen / equitable tolling	Filing was effectively prompted by the pardon issued 7 days earlier and equitable tolling would apply	Motion was filed a year after the final order; petitioner did not ask for equitable tolling	BIA did not abuse discretion in denying the untimely motion; petitioner never sought equitable tolling
Effect of state pardon on admissibility under §1182	Pritzker's pardon makes petitioner retroactively admissible or voids convictions	INA contains no pardon waiver for admissibility; pardon waiver exists only in §1227 (removability)	Court holds pardon cannot render an otherwise inadmissible noncitizen admissible; statutory text/1990 amendments control
Precedent and regulation relied on by petitioner (Matter of H- and 22 C.F.R. §40.21)	Matter of H- and the State Dept. regulation support treating pardoned convictions as not rendering one inadmissible	The 1954 BIA decision is superseded by amendments; a regulation cannot override statutory text	BIA properly rejected Matter of H- and the State Dept. regulation as inconsistent with the INA
Equal protection challenge to different treatment of admitted vs. seeking-entry noncitizens	Distinction is arbitrary and unfairly penalizes those who travel and attempt reentry	Congress has plausible rationales for treating the two groups differently	Rational-basis review satisfied; equal protection claim fails

Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (discussing admission terminology in immigration law)
Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (jurisdiction over motions to reopen)
Cruz-Velasco v. Garland, 58 F.4th 900 (review limit for BIA sua sponte reopening absent legal error)
Polselli v. IRS, 143 S. Ct. 1231 (statutory interpretation: give significance to differing statutory language)
Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (agency interpretations inconsistent with statute are not controlling)
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (admitted vs. non-admitted noncitizens are differently situated)
Mejia-Rodriguez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 46 (upholding differential statutory treatment of admission vs. removal)