UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________

No. 21-1490 ______________

JARVIN ORLANDO LOPEZ, Petitioner

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (No. A094-481-777) Immigration Judge: Walter Durling ______________

Argued January 26, 2022 Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, McKEE and MATEY, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: September 9, 2022) Sandra L. Greene [Argued] Greene Fitzgerald Advocates and Consultants 2575 Eastern Boulevard Suite 208 York, PA 17402 Counsel for Petitioner Brian M. Boynton James A. Hurley [Argued] Anna E. Juarez United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation Room 5009 P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent

______________

OPINION OF THE COURT ______________ MATEY, Circuit Judge.

Jarvin Lopez hopes to avoid deportation under § 203(b) of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), but he cannot meet the standard NACARA applies to applicants removeable for certain drug offenses. So he asks for a waiver of NACARA’s requirements under § 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), which applies to applications for adjustment of status. But § 212(h) is inapplicable because an application for NACARA

2 cancellation of removal is not an application for adjustment of status under the best reading of the INA. So we will deny Lopez’s petition for review.

I. A. The Statutes

A bit of background frames this controversy, so we begin with a short history of the INA and NACARA. Enacted in 1952, the INA governs noncitizens’ entrance into and removal from the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101–1537. Among other mechanisms, the INA allows admissible aliens to apply for “adjustment of status” to “an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1255. But it makes aliens inadmissible for various reasons, including for committing an enumerated criminal offense, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2), and provides for their removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. INA § 212(h), in turn, gives the Attorney General discretion to grant a waiver of inadmissibility for applicants who meet the eligibility requirements. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h).

NACARA came later, creating special eligibility standards for suspension or cancellation of removal for certain Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Nicaraguans. NACARA §§ 202, 203, Pub. L. No. 105-100, tit. II, 111 Stat. 2160 (1997), amended by Pub. L. No. 105-139, 111 Stat. 2644 (1997). NACARA lets the Attorney General adjust the status of some otherwise-inadmissible aliens to “lawfully admitted for permanent residence,” allowing them to remain in the United States. NACARA § 203(b). But Congress cabined his discretion by imposing stricter standards for applicants who have committed an offense that the INA lists as a ground for inadmissibility. Id.

3 This case asks whether aliens subject to these stricter standards for NACARA cancellation of removal can use an INA § 212(h) waiver to relax them again. We conclude that they cannot. B. Jarvin Lopez’s Story

Lopez is a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States without authorization in 2001. He conceded removability when the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) initiated removal in 2009, but he applied for relief under NACARA. While removal proceedings continued, Lopez was charged with possession of marijuana. Following a guilty plea in 2015, DHS added a charge of removability under the INA, 8 U.S.C. §