(“BIA”) order affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s decision denying Lising’s application for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review the statutory eligibility elements of a waiver of inadmissibility under section 237(a)(1)(H). See San Pedro v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1156, 1157 (9th Cir.2005). Reviewing de novo, Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review. The agency correctly found Lising to be statutorily ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 237(a)(1)(H) because he did not have a qualifying relative at the time of the immigration judge’s decision. See Kalezic v. INS, 647 F.2d 920, 922 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Lising’s contention that he merited relief in
holding that the date of death is relevant date of inquiry for the applicability of section 541a5a holding that the date of discrimination is the date on which a decision not to hire a plaintiff becomes effective holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act holding that the critical date for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 237a1h is the date of the immigration judges decision holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due