Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-16-12028/USCOURTS-ca11-16-12028-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis Eduardo Sagastume-Montiel
Petitioner
U.S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-12028

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A094-806-031

LUIS EDUARDO SAGASTUME-MONTIEL, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(January 17, 2017)

Before HULL, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 16-12028 Date Filed: 01/17/2017 Page: 1 of 4
2

Luis Eduardo Sagastume-Montiel, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 

petitions for review of an order affirming the denial of his application for 

cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The Board of Immigration 

Appeals affirmed the finding that Sagastume-Montiel was removable as an 

inadmissible alien by virtue of being an applicant for admission to the United 

States without a valid entry document. See id. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). SagastumeMontiel argues that he was not an applicant for admission because he was allowed 

to reenter the country under an advance authorization for parole. SagastumeMontiel also argues that, even if he was an applicant, his advance parole was a

“valid entry document” that entitled him to admission to the country. We deny in 

part and dismiss in part Sagastume-Montiel’s petition.

The Board did not err in finding that Sagastume-Montiel was an 

inadmissible alien. In 1998, Sagastume-Montiel entered the United States on a 

nonimmigrant visa, but he remained in the country without authorization and was 

arrested after misrepresenting that he was a U.S. citizen. After SagastumeMontiel’s immigration proceedings were deferred, he received advance 

authorization for parole and left the country. Sagastume-Montiel returned to the 

United States as an inadmissible alien. “[A]t the time of application for 

admission,” Sagastume-Montiel was “not in possession of a valid unexpired 

immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid 

USCA11 Case: 16-12028 Date Filed: 01/17/2017 Page: 2 of 4
3

entry document required by this chapter, and a valid unexpired passport, or other 

suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality.” Id. Although 

Sagastume-Montiel was paroled into the United States, “such parole . . . [was]

not . . . regarded as an admission” and it was immediately terminated, which 

resulted in him being “dealt with . . . as that of any other applicant for admission to 

the United States.” See id. § 1182(d)(5)(A); see also id. § 1101(a)(13)(B) (“An 

alien who is paroled under section 1182(d)(5) of this title . . . shall not be 

considered to have been admitted.”). Parole “allowed [Sagastume-Montiel] into the 

country but [he] remain[ed] constructively at the border, seeking admission and 

subject to exclusion proceedings.” See Assa’ad v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 

1338 (11th Cir. 2003); see also Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185, 190 (1958)

(“parole . . . is simply a device through which needless confinement is avoided 

while administrative proceedings are conducted” and “was never intended to affect 

an alien’s status”). We deny that part of Sagastume-Montiel’s petition challenging 

his classification as an inadmissible alien.

We lack jurisdiction to review whether Sagastume-Montiel’s advance parole

served as a valid entry document. That issue was not addressed during SagastumeMontiel’s removal hearing or in his appeal to the Board. See Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

555 F.3d 1310, 1316–17 n.5 (11th Cir. 2009). “We lack jurisdiction to consider a 

claim raised in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his 

USCA11 Case: 16-12028 Date Filed: 01/17/2017 Page: 3 of 4
4

administrative remedies with respect thereto.” Amaya–Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We dismiss this part of SagastumeMontiel’s petition.

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

USCA11 Case: 16-12028 Date Filed: 01/17/2017 Page: 4 of 4