Jarvin Lopez v. Attorney General United States, 49 F.4th 231

Jarvin Lopez, a Salvadoran national, entered the U.S. without authorization in 2001, conceded removability in 2009, and applied for relief under NACARA.
In 2015 Lopez pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana; DHS charged him inadmissible under INA § 1182(a)(2) for a controlled-substance offense.
NACARA § 203(b) imposes stricter eligibility for cancellation of removal when an applicant committed an INA-listed offense (e.g., extends continuous-presence requirement and restarts the clock); Lopez conceded this made him ineligible for NACARA relief.
Lopez sought an INA § 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility (which applies to visa, admission, or adjustment-of-status applicants) to overcome the drug-offense ground and qualify for NACARA cancellation.
The BIA denied relief, holding § 212(h) waivers are not available for NACARA cancellation-of-removal applications; the Third Circuit reviewed the legal question de novo and affirmed the BIA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an INA § 212(h) waiver may be used to cure INA § 1182(a)(2) inadmissibility in an application for NACARA cancellation of removal	Lopez: NACARA cancellation that results in adjustment to lawful permanent resident status is, for § 212(h) purposes, an "adjustment of status," so the § 212(h) waiver applies	Govt/BIA: § 212(h) authorizes waivers only for visa, admission, or adjustment-of-status applications as historically understood; cancellation of removal is distinct and NACARA did not amend § 212(h) to include it	The court held § 212(h) waiver does not apply to NACARA cancellation of removal; petition denied

Chevron v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (establishes agency deference framework for statutory interpretation)
Myrie v. Att'y Gen., 855 F.3d 509 (3d Cir. 2017) (de novo review of legal questions in immigration appeals)
Raleigh & G.R. Co. v. Reid, 80 U.S. 269 (negative-implication canon: specifying modes excludes others)
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (use of ordinary/public meaning in statutory interpretation)
Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103 (specialized legal terms carry legal meaning over ordinary meaning)
Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236 (surplusage canon discourages constructions that render statutes redundant)
Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Becerra, 142 S. Ct. 1896 (2022) (recent Supreme Court guidance on courts' duty to independently interpret statutory text)