Tienda-Ramos, a native of Mexico illegally present in the United States, petitions for review of a final order of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). Reviewing the BIA’s conclusions of law de novo while granting Chevron 1 deference to its reasonable interpretations of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”), Mortera-Cruz v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 246, 250 (5th Cir. 2005), we deny review for the following reasons:

1. Tienda-Ramos seeks adjustment of status from that of an illegal alien physically present in the United States to that of a lawful permanent resident under INA § 245(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Tienda-Ramos’s application for status adjustment because, having reentered the country ■without admission after prior unlawful presence for an aggregate period *400 of more than a year, Tienda-Ramos is inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), a grounds of inadmissibility for which there is no waiver.

2. We have previously upheld as reasonable the BIA’s interpretation that compliance with the requirements of INA § 245(i) does not cure inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). Mortera-Cruz, 409 F.3d at 256. We are aware that the Ninth Circuit holds that INA § 245(i) trumps inadmissibility stemming from the aggregate of one year of unlawful presence under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), 2 but that is not the law in this circuit.

3. We have also previously rejected Tienda-Ramos’s argument that permitting § 245(i) waiver of certain § 212 grounds of inadmissability while denying waiver for § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) runs afoul of equal protection safeguards, finding one-violation aliens and multiple-violation aliens dissimilarly situated. Mortera-Cruz, 409 F.3d at 255-56.

PETITION DENIED.