Rodolfo Perdomo-Rodriguez v. U.S. Attorney General

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Petitioner Rodolfo Perdomo-Rodriguez. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Petition DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-16906

Date Filed: 07/05/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16906
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A024-370-860

RODOLFO PERDOMO-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(July 5, 2017)
Before HULL, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-16906

Date Filed: 07/05/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Rodolfo Perdomo-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions for
review of an order affirming the denial of his application to suspend his
deportation. Perdomo challenges the determination that he is ineligible for
suspension of deportation and the decision to grant his motion to sua sponte reopen
his exclusion proceedings. We deny in part and dismiss in part Perdomo’s petition.
Perdomo is ineligible for suspension of deportation. Although Perdomo was
paroled into the United States and, after being ordered excluded, was reparoled, his
parole was never considered an admission to this country. Parole “allowed
[Perdomo] 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”). To qualify for suspension of
deportation, Perdomo had to have been “physically present” in the United States
for a continuous period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (repealed 1996). Because Perdomo
never made an “entry” to this country, he was excluded instead of deported. See
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 25 (1982). As “an alien properly in exclusion
proceedings[, Perdomo was] not entitled to apply for suspension of deportation,
despite being present in the United States on parole for an extensive period of
2

Case: 16-16906

Date Filed: 07/05/2017

Page: 3 of 3

time.” Matter of Torres, 19 I. & N. Dec. 371, 373 (BIA 1986). We deny that part
of Perdomo’s petition challenging the denial of his application for suspension of
deportation.
We lack jurisdiction to review the decision to reopen Perdomo’s exclusion
proceedings. Perdomo concedes that he failed to challenge that ruling in his appeal
to the Board. “We lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for
review unless the petitioner has exhausted his 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 Perdomo’s petition.
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

3