to consider applications for adjustment of status from aliens who are paroled into the country. See 425 F.3d at 664-65. CALLAHAN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority that RicardezRivera is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in the Immigration Court on his Fifth Amendment due process claim, and that if he prevails on this claim, under SalgadoDiaz he would be returned to his original prearrest status and the government could not rely on his attempted reentries to render him removable. Salgado-Diaz, 395 F.3d at 1164, 1168. He is entitled to a hearing because his affidavit filed in the Immigration Court in support of his motion to suppress established a prima facie Fifth Amendment violation. See Matter of Wong, 13 I. & N. Dec. 820, 1971 WL 24387 (1971) (<HOLDING>). However, Ricardez-Rivera has failed to
holding that a plaintiff must merely make out a prima facie case to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction where there has been no evidentiary hearing holding that although a jury instruction that included the phrase prima facie case and referred to defendants burden of production created a distinct risk of confusing the jury in certain instances it would be appropriate to instruct the jury on the elements of a prima facie case holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 holding that a motion for suppression must be specific and detailed and set forth a prima facie case holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review