U.. Dpm o Jusc
Executive Oce r Imgraton Reew Decson of the Board ofmmaton Appeals Falls Curch, Vrgna
File: 024 -New York, NY In re: R P
REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEL Date: ON BHALF OF RSPONDENT: Steven H. Goldblatt, Esquire ON BHALF OF DHS CHAGE: Sarah B. Campbell Assistant Chief Counsel
otice: Sec. 237(a)()(B), I& N ct [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)()(B)] -In the United States in violation of la PPLICATION: djustment of status The Depament of Homeland Security ("DHS) appeals om the Immigration Judge's August 19, 2013, decision granting the respondent's application r adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality ct, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The appeal will be dismissed. First, the DHS argues that the respondent is ineligible r adjustment of status because she is inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i), as an alien who the consular ocer or the ttoey General knos or has reason to believe is or has been an illicit tracker in any controlle substance or is or has been a knowing, assister, abettor, conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit trafcking in a controlled substance (DHS's Br. at 12-15.
section 245(a) of the Act (requiring alien to be admssible to the United States r permanent residence). The respondent testied that in May 2011, while she was incarcerated, she picked up a package containing marijuana that as le in a communal shower, concealed it in her bra, and retued to her cell to await her iend's retu (Tr. at 270-75). She was caught ith the drugs and as a result, she as convicted of Promoting Prison Contraband in violation of New York Penal La section 205.201(1) (Exh. 12). The DHS argues that the respondent's admitted involvement in this transr of marijuana shos that there is "reason to believe that she has been an illicit drug trafcker. We disagree. Specically, we are persuaded by the respondent's appellate argument that her admitted conduct does not constitute "illicit tracking because of the small amount of marijuana at issue (to "baggies that t in her bra) and because there is inadequate evidence of any remuneration or commercial aspect to the transaction (Respondents Br. at 29-32). Accordingly, we agree with the Immigration Judge that the respondent is not barred om adjustment of status as an alien inadmissible under section 212(a(2 of the Act (I.J. at 10-11).
Cite as: R-P-, AXXX XXX 024 (BIA Feb. 19, 2014)