in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws.” Id. § 1101(a)(20). In Monet v. INS, we held that relief under § 212(c) “requires lawful admission.” 791 F.2d 752, 754 (9th Cir.1986) (internal quotation omitted). We agreed with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning that “[t]he term ‘lawfully’ denotes compliance with substantive legal requirements, not mere procedural regularity.” Id. at 753 (quoting In re Longstajf, 716 F.2d 1439, 1441 (5th Cir.1983)). Although an alien may have been admitted for permanent residence, he has not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence if he was precluded from obtaining permanent resident status due to an inability to meet the prerequisites. Id. at 755; see also Hing Sum v. Holder, 602 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). It is clear that Avalos was inadmissible at
holding that an order denying a petitioners motion to reopen proceedings so that he could apply for adjustment of status was not a judgment regarding the granting of relief and was thus reviewable holding that refugees who have already acquired lpr status are ineligible for a  209c waiver in light of the language in that adjustment of status can be granted to an alien who has not acquired permanent resident status recognizing that an alien is ineligible for relief under  212c if he was not actually admissible at the time he received an adjustment of status holding that iirira and aedpa are not applicable to criminal alien who entered a guilty plea at a time when alien was eligible for  212c relief holding ineligible for adjustment of status alien who was inadmissible due to reentry after prior removal