Opinion ID: 550890
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Immigration Status

Text: 10 The Government urges this Court to adopt the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit in Delgado-Carrera v. INS, 773 F.2d 629 (5th Cir.1985) which states that a Form I-210 30-day parole does not alter the status of an alien having illegally entered the United States and therefore [a] paroled alien is ... not deemed to be within the United States and is subject to exclusion just as if [the alien] were initially appearing at the border seeking entry. Id. at 632. See also United States v. Alvarado-Machado, 867 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir.1989). 11 This court cannot accept the Government's position. If an alien holding a 30-day parole letter is permitted to remain and work in the United States without fear of prosecution, then to hold that, for purposes of prosecution under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324(a)(1)(B), the very same alien is not remaining legally in the United States would be to create a legal fiction, United States v. Bienvenido de la Rosa-Basilio, 682 F.Supp. 13 (D.P.R.1988), which we cannot accept. 12 Our interpretation of the meaning of parole status is, moreover, also the interpretation that has been adopted by the INS. Both the agent involved in the Bienvenido case and Agent Foy here, when questioned, stated that a 30-day parole gives an alien the right to remain and work in the United States without being in violation of law. See, id. at 14. 13 For purposes of determining the immigration status of informant Hernandez-Fana, we find it a mere formality that he had not yet received an official Form I-210 parole letter. The INS nevertheless allowed him to remain in the United States without fear of prosecution the same as if he had been officially paroled. Thus we find that Hernandez-Fana was enjoying de facto, if not de jure, parole status at the time of his involvement with defendant.