In 2005, the Tenth Circuit issued its decision in Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales, finding that an applicant was eligible for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) even if he was inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(C) of the INA. In 2007, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) disagreed in Matter of Briones, finding such an applicant ineligible for adjustment of status. In 2011, the Tenth Circuit again considered the Padilla-Caldera matter, and in its second decision, it deferred to the BIA's determination in Briones. In 2015, the Tenth Circuit limited its deference in De Niz Robles v. Lynch, finding that applications who applied after the first decision in Padilla-Caldera, but before Briones, could still seek adjustment of status under section 245(i), even if they were inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(C), because they had a good faith reliance on the first decision in Padilla-Caldera.
Gutierrez-Brizuela, who was inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(C) of the INA, applied for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the INA after the decision in Briones, but before the second decision in Padilla-Caldera. The Tenth Circuit found him to be similarly situated to De Niz Robles, indicating that applicants for adjustment of status had a good faith reliance on the first decision in Padilla-Caldera until it issued the second Padilla-Caldera decision in 2011.
The full text of Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-9585.pdf