Parra-Rojas v. Attorney General United States, 747 F.3d 164

Petitioner Carlos Parra-Rojas is a native and citizen of Colombia who became a U.S. permanent resident in 1984 and is married to a U.S. citizen with a U.S. citizen son.
In 2009 he admitted at a checkpoint that he picked up two illegal aliens near the Canadian border on a plan to be paid to drive them within New York; he had done similar work previously.
He pleaded guilty to Bringing In or Harboring Aliens for Financial Gain under § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii); a separate transporting offense was dismissed.
He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.
In 2011 DHS charged him with removability and sought adjustment of status under § 1255(a); the IJ denied adjustment under § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) the smuggling bar; the BIA affirmed.
The Third Circuit reverses, holding that his conduct, not the conviction alone, determines inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does a conviction under the 'brings to' offense render inadmissible under § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i)?	Parra-Rojas argues conviction alone does not prove requisite mens rea or cover the statute’s scope.	Government contends the conviction aligns with the smuggling bar and supports inadmissibility.	No; conviction alone is not determinative; actual conduct controls.
Whether Petitioner’s conduct supports inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) given he transported aliens within the U.S. after entry.	Petra-Rojas did not act prior to entry and did not aid entry, so no inadmissibility.	Dis favor acknowledges broader reach of smuggling bar and pre-entry facilitation.	Petitioner’s post-entry transport alone does not satisfy § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i).

Soriano v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2007) (analysis focuses on actual conduct rather than conviction)
Ramos v. Holder, 660 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2011) (affirmative acts facilitating entry may suffice)
Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2007) (smuggling bar applies to conduct extending to entry)
Sanchez-Marquez v. INS, 725 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1983) (transporting aliens within the U.S. after entry not ‘bringing to’)
Lopez v. United States, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2006) (conduct similar to issue here did not constitute ‘brings to’)
Gonzalez-Torres, 309 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 2002) (entry-related smuggling concepts explained)
Rodriguez-Gutierrez v. INS, 59 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 1995) (transporting not per se inadmissible)
Barradas v. Holder, 582 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2009) (smuggling bar not limited to conviction)