CA11 on ‘Applicant for Admission’ – Ortiz-Bouchet v. U.S. Atty. Gen.
"We initially find that the IJ erred as a matter of law in finding Ortiz and Malpica inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) because that section only applies to applicants for admission and not to immigrants like Ortiz and Malpica who sought post-entry adjustment of status while already in the United States. Under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), an immigrant is inadmissible if “at the time of application for admission [he] is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa . . . or other valid entry document [.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). We have previously held that the definition of “admission” in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)is unambiguous and “does not encompass a post-entry adjustment of status.” Lanier, 631 F.3d at 1366. We now hold the same in regards to § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). In this case, Ortiz and Malpica were not outside the United States seeking entry, but rather already