Background
Samra Adel, a former refugee from Afghanistan and citizen of Canada, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s decision. The immigration judge found Adel inadmissible and ordered her removal based on willful misrepresentations and a prior removal order. Adel had been removed under Section twelve hundred twenty-five subsection b one on March twelfth, two thousand, and sought admission again on March twenty-eighth, two thousand.
The court’s reasoning
The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider Adel’s factual challenge to the Board of Immigration Appeals finding that she made willful misrepresentations. Under Section twelve hundred fifty-two subsection a two subsection C and D, the court cannot review final removal orders when the petitioner is inadmissible due to a criminal offense, except for constitutional questions or questions of law. The court then addressed the legal argument regarding Section eleven hundred eighty-two subsection a nine subsection a one. It found no legal error because the statute renders a noncitizen inadmissible if they seek admission within five years of being ordered removed. The court clarified that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not transform the five-year period into a lifetime ban but correctly determined Adel was within the five-year period when charged in December two thousand and one.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the jurisdictional bar preventing federal courts from reviewing factual determinations of willful misrepresentation in removal cases and confirms the strict application of the five-year inadmissibility period for prior removals.