An applicant for adjustment of status initially indicated that he entered the United States with a visa. Later, he stated that he entered without inspection with the assistance of a smuggler. His application for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the INA was denied and he was referred to Immigration Court, where he conceded that he entered the United States with admission. Nevertheless, the Immigration Judge denied his application for adjustment of status, finding insufficient evidence that he entered without inspection. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that different burdens of proof apply in the removability and eligibility for relief context, and thus, the applicant's concession of removability does not necessarily meet his burden of demonstrating that he entered without inspection, as required under section 245(i) of the INA. The decision seems to overlook the fact that individuals who enter with a visa, but fail to maintain lawful nonimmigrant status, are also eligible to adjust under section 245(i) of the INA.
The full text of Patel v. Lynch can be found here: