Martin Leiba v. Eric Holder, Jr., 699 F.3d 346

Mendoza Leiba is a Salvadoran citizen who entered the United States illegally and later adjusted to lawful permanent resident status in 1995; he and his wife have five children.
Mendoza’s wife became a U.S. citizen in 2001.
In 2008, Mendoza was convicted in Virginia of receiving stolen property with a 36-month suspended sentence.
DHS filed removal proceedings in 2010, charging Mendoza as removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an aggravated felon after admission.
Mendoza sought adjustment of status and a waiver under INA § 212(h); DHS moved to pretermit Mendoza’s § 212(h) waiver eligibility, and the IJ granted the motion, leading to removal proceedings being continued or ordered, which the Board affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 212(h) bars a waiver for an alien who never lawfully admitted but later adjusts to LPR.	Mendoza argues the bar does not apply based on the statutory definitions of admission and prior admission.	DHS contends the § 212(h) bar applies given the terms of 'admitted' and related language.	§ 212(h) bar unambiguously does not apply to Mendoza.

Bracamontes v. Holder, 675 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2012) (held §212(h) bar does not apply to an alien who never lawfully entered after inspection with LPR status; adjustment does not count as admission for purposes of §212(h))
Aremu v. Department of Homeland Security, 450 F.3d 578 (4th Cir. 2006) (definition of 'admission' and 'admitted'; adjustment to LPR not an 'admission' under §212(h))
Lanier v. Attorney Gen., 631 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirmed Bracamontes approach; date of admission not necessarily adjusted by status change)
Martinez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 532 (5th Cir. 2008) (interpretation of §212(h) terms; consistency across circuits)
Sigmon Coal Co. v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2000) (absurd-result doctrine may justify looking at legislative history; strong reliance on plain meaning)