## Facts

- Areguillin, a native and citizen of Mexico, was placed in deportation proceedings for lacking valid entry documents.
- She conceded deportability but sought adjustment of status under INA § 245 based on an approved immediate-relative petition filed by her U.S. citizen spouse.
- Her last entry occurred when she rode in a car with five other passengers crossing from Mexico into the United States.
- She had no travel or entry documents.
- At the port of entry, an immigration officer looked into the vehicle and questioned the driver but did not question Areguillin; she did not volunteer information.
- The officer permitted the car and its occupants to proceed into the United States.
- The immigration judge denied adjustment, concluding she was not “inspected and admitted” because she was not personally questioned and presented no documents, and granted voluntary departure.
- Areguillin appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether a noncitizen passenger who is visible at a port of entry, makes no knowing false claim to U.S. citizenship, and is allowed to pass—despite not being individually questioned—has been “inspected and admitted” for INA § 245 eligibility.
2. Whether the record required remand where the immigration judge made no explicit credibility or sufficiency findings on the respondent’s testimony about the manner of entry.
3. Whether immediate relatives exempt from numerical limitations fall within the scope of the Silva v. Levi/Silva v. Bell injunction.

## Decision

- The BIA rejected the view that lack of individual questioning or documents necessarily defeats “inspection and admission” for § 245 purposes.
- The BIA held that a person is “inspected” if she physically presents herself for inspection and makes no knowing false claim to U.S. citizenship, even if asked no questions and volunteering no information.
- The BIA held that “admission” occurs when the inspecting officer communicates a determination of admissibility, which is satisfied when the officer permits the person to pass the port of entry.
- The BIA reaffirmed that the applicant bears the burden to prove she in fact presented herself for inspection as part of establishing adjustment eligibility.
- Because the immigration judge made no explicit findings on credibility and factual sufficiency regarding the claimed port-of-entry inspection and permission to pass, the BIA sustained the appeal in part and remanded for further findings.
- The BIA held that immediate relatives and others exempt from numerical limitations are not covered by the Silva injunction.

## Legal Principles

- “Inspection” for INA § 245 can be satisfied where the applicant physically presents at a port of entry and does not knowingly misrepresent U.S. citizenship, even without individualized questioning.
- “Admission” may be shown by the inspector’s act of allowing the applicant to proceed through the port of entry, which constitutes communication of a determination that the applicant is not inadmissible.
- In adjustment proceedings, the applicant bears the burden of proving statutory eligibility, including the factual claim that she presented herself for inspection and was admitted.
- Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (and other categories exempt from numerical limits) are outside the scope of injunctions directed at quota-restricted immigrant admissions, such as the Silva injunction.

## Conclusion

The BIA interpreted “inspected and admitted” under INA § 245 to include visible vehicle passengers allowed to enter after port-of-entry inspection, absent a knowing false citizenship claim, but remanded because the immigration judge had not made necessary credibility and factual findings to determine whether Areguillin proved that her entry occurred under those conditions.


In re Areguillin, 17 I. & N. Dec. 308 (B.I.A. 1980)