The uncertainty about (A) most likely stems from a confusion about definitions stemming from the unfortunate naming of "Lebesgue-measurable" functions.
Namely, it is usually the case (and for the result of this question to hold, must be the case) that a function $f$ is called "Lebesgue-measurable" if the preimage $f^{-1}(B)$ of any Borel set $B$ is in the Lebesgue $\sigma$-algebra.
Reasons for this definition are discussed here: Why this definition for Lebesgue measurable functions?
This is weaker than the preimages $f^{-1}(L)$ of Lebesgue sets $L$ having to be Lebesgue, which is what the name "Lebesgue-measurable" incorrectly suggests.
It follows from this definition that all Borel-measurable functions are also Lebesgue-measurable.
In particular, $g$ is a composition of two Borel-measurable functions ($f$ and addition), which makes it Borel- and so Lebesgue-measurable.
PS. It's not enough for $g$ to be positive on a full measure set for it to not be integrable - think of $h(x, y) = \exp\{-(x^2 + y^2)\}$, which in integrable despite being everywhere positive.
A different approach would be to find an $A$ such that $\lambda(A) > 0$ and $f(x) > \epsilon$ for all $x \in A$ and some $\epsilon > 0$ and show that $g(x, t) > \epsilon$ on the set
$$
B =
\biggl\{
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -1 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
x \\
y
\end{pmatrix} :
\begin{pmatrix}
x \\
y
\end{pmatrix}
\in A \times \mathbf{R}
\biggr\},
$$
which is a shear of $A \times \mathbf{R}$ and so has infinite Lebesgue measure.