The Board of Immigration Appeals has again determined that a Notice to Appear that is lacking the time and date of the first removal hearing does not deprive the Immigration Court of jurisdiction. The Board also noted that parole terminates when a respondent is served with a Notice to Appear, even if it is missing the time and date information. The Board then engaged in a very troublesome analysis of how the termination of parole caused the respondent to resort to her previous status as a person present without admission or parole, making her ineligible for adjustment of status under 245(a) of the INA. This is troubling, as it has long been understood by the courts that expired parole would still meet the “admitted or paroled” requirement for adjustment. This case appears to involve someone who was seeing to adjust in a preference category, and therefore, would have also needed to show that she was also maintaining lawful status at the time of her adjustment application. It also involved a person who originally entered without inspection and then was granted parole to testify in a criminal proceeding. Both of these facts could distinguish this case from that of a person who presented herself at a port of entry and was paroled in, and who is seeking adjustment as an immediate relative. Nevertheless, practitioners should be aware of the potential ramifications of the parole analysis in this case.
The full text of Matter of Arambula-Bravo can be found here: