UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______

No. 21-1379 ____________

OCHOLI OCHALA IREDIA, Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________

On Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board No. A078-193-552) Immigration Judge: Steven A. Morley ____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) December 9, 2021 Before: SHWARTZ, PORTER and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: February 11, 2022) Carlos R. Munoz Sachs Law Group 1518 Walnut Street, Suite 610 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel for Petitioner Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director Kristen H. Blosser Jonathan A. Robbins United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent ______

OPINION OF THE COURT ______ FISHER, Circuit Judge. An Immigration Judge (IJ) entered a final order of removal holding that Ocholi Ochala Iredia, a citizen of Nigeria, is inadmissible to the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. Iredia petitions for review

2 of the BIA’s decision. We will deny the petition. 1 Iredia was admitted to the United States in 1997 on a tourist visa, which he overstayed. Later, he was granted advance parole, left the United States, returned in November 2006, and was paroled into the country. The parole was valid until November 2007. Iredia overstayed the parole and, in 2011, the Department of Homeland Security served him with a Notice to Appear charging that he was inadmissible “as an immigrant who, at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing card, or other valid entry document. . . .” AR 536 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)). After a hearing, the IJ held that Iredia was inadmissible and ordered him removed. Iredia raises one argument: that he should have been charged as removable, not inadmissible. He contends that when he was served with the Notice to Appear, he already had been admitted to the United States on a tourist visa, and the visa’s subsequent expiration did not affect the fact of his admission. Iredia argues that advance parole does not change an individual’s immigration status, so he remained an admitted alien while he obtained advance parole, left the country, returned, and was paroled back in. Therefore, he says, he

1 The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b) (appeals from decisions of IJs). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (judicial review of final orders of removal). Where the BIA issues a reasoned decision, not a summary affirmance, we review its decision and not the IJ’s. Chavarria v. Gonzalez, 446 F.3d 508, 515 (3d Cir. 2006). Iredia raises only a legal argument, and “we review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo.” Borges v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 398, 404 (3d Cir. 2005).

3 should not have been charged as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7). He admits that he may have been removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227, 2 but asserts that the charging error should have led to the termination of his removal proceedings. The Government argues that Iredia did not administratively exhaust this argument. A petitioner meets the exhaustion requirement “so long as [he] makes some effort, however insufficient, to place the [BIA] on notice of a straightforward issue being raised on appeal.” Nkomo v. Att’y Gen., 986 F.3d 268, 272