Interim Decision #3057
MATEER OF BADALAMENTI
In Exclusion Proceedings
A-26280821
Decided by Board April 4, 1988
(1) An alien who is extradited to the United States and paroled for the purpose of
prosecution does not automatically become an applicant for admission upon termination of parole_
(2) If the parole of an alien who has been extradited to the United States is terminatM, he mulct. be given a reasonable opportunity to depart unless there is evidence that he is an applicant for admission.
(3) An extradited alien's failure to depart from the United States within the 7 days
granted by the district director does not by itself establish that the alien is an
applicant for admission.
(4) Where an alien who is extradited to the United States denies that he is an applicant for admission, claims that he made every effort to depart within the time
granted by the district director, and contends that the Government impeded his
efforts to depart, the record will be remanded to the immigration judge to allow
the alien to submit evidence regarding these matters.
(5) If upon remand it is established that the Government impeded the alien's efforts
to depart, such evidence shall weigh against a finding that he was given a fair
and reasonable opportunity to depart.
EXCLUDABLE: Act of 1952—Sec. 212(aX19) [8 § 1182(aX19)]—Procured entry
by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material
fact
Sec. 212(a)(20) [8 U.S.C. § 1182(aX20)]—No valid immigrant visa
Sec. 212(aX26) [8 U.S.C. § 1182(aX26)]—No valid nonimmigrant visa
000
Interim Decision #3057
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
Lowell J. Gettman, Esquire Jill H. Dufresne
Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen, P.C. Assistant District
515 Madison Avenue Counsel
New York. New York 10022
Michael D. Patrick, Esquire
Campbell, Patrick & Chin
140 Broadway
New York, New York 10005
BY: Milhollam Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members
In a decision dated March 30, 1987, an immigration judge found
Mr. Badalamenti excludable on all three grounds set forth above,
denied his request to withdraw his application for admission, and
ordered that he be excluded and deported from the United States.
Mr_ Radalamenti has appealed. The record will be remanded for
further proceedings
Mr. Badalamenti is a male alien, a native and citizen of Italy. On
March 29, 1985, he was extradited by Spain to the United States
pursuant to an extradition treaty for the purpose of criminal prosecution. The Government paroled him pursuant to section 212(d)(5)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5) (1982).
Mr. Badalamenti was acquitted of all criminal charges on March 2,
1987. His bail was exonerated on March 9, 1987, but he remained
in custody at the request of the Government pursuant to section
235(b) of the Act, S U.S.C. § 1225(b) (1982).
By letter dated March 10, 1987, the district director notified Mr.
Badalamenti that his parole was revoked because the criminal proceedings for which he was paroled were completed. The district director advised Mr. Badalamenti that he was free to leave the
United States at his own expense and directed him to notify the
district director's office by the close of business on Friday, March
13, 1987, of arrangements made for his departure on or before
March 17, 1987, to a country that was willing to accept him into its
territory. He further informed Mr. Badalamenti that his failure to
comply with the directive would result in the immediate institution
of exclusion proceedings pursuant to sections 235 and 236 of the
Act,
8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226 (1982), and his deportation pursuant
to section 237 of the Act,
8 U.S.C. § 1227 (1982). Mr. Badalamenti
failed to comply with the district director's directive, and on March
17, 1987, a Notice to Applicant for Admission Detained for Hearing
before Immigration Judge (Form 1-122) was issued and served,
624
Interim Decision *3057
noting that he appears to be excludable under sections 212(a)(19),
(20), and (26) of the Act.
On March 17, 1987, Mr. Badalamenti filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on the ground that he was being unlawfully
detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The petition was dismissed without opinion on March 27, 1987. An exclusion hearing was held before an immigration judge on or about
March 24, 1987.
On appeal, Mr. Badalamenti contends that he was extradited to
the United States pursuant to a treaty of extradition between the
United States of America and Spain, and that that treaty accords
him 45 days' freedom from custody before exclusion proceedings
may be instituted against him.
We find no merit in this contention. We agree with the immigration judge that the treaty of extradition between the United States
and Spain does not preclude these proceedings. The provision of the
treaty according 45 days within which to depart protects against
detention, trial, or punishment for criminal offenses other than
those for which the subject was extradited, and exclusion proceedings are not criminal proceedings. Matter of Exiles, 18 I&N Dec.
276 (BIA 1982); cf. INS v. Lopez Mendoza,
468 U.S. 1032 (1084).
Mr. Badalamenti also contends that he has been improperly
placed in. exclusion proceedings because he is not an applicant for
admission into the United States. He explains that he was brought
to the United States against his will and that he has not sought
and does not seek admission into the United States, but he seeks
only to leave at the earliest possible moment. As he has not sought
admission, he reasons that he is not an applicant, is not excludable,
and should be permitted to depart immediately. Mr. Badalamenti
concedes that the Government gave him time within which to arrange for his departure but contends that the time was insufficient
under the circumstances. Further, he contends that the immigration judge erred in refusing to allow him to submit evidence of his
efforts to depart. Mr. Badalamenti claimq that his attorney made
every effort to arrange for his departure within the time granted
by the Service and at one point received permission for him to
enter Paraguay. He contends that all arrangements had been
made, that all necessary documents had been obtained, and that he
was en route to the airport when, without prior notice or warning,
the Government prevented his departure.
The Service contends that Mr. Badalamenti must be considered.
an applicant for admission because his parole has been terminated
and he failed to depart within the time granted by the Service.
625
Interim Decision #3057
Sections 235(a) and ()) of the Act direct in pertinent part:
(a) All aliens arriving at ports of the United States shall be examined by one or
more immigration officers. - . .
(b) Every alien . . . who may not appear . . . entitled to land shall be detained
for further inquiry to be conducted by a special inquiry officer.
Mr. Badalamenti was paroled under section 212(d)(5) of the Act.
That section provides:
(SXA) The Attorney General may, except as provided in subparagraph o3), is his
discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he
may prescribe for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in the public
interest any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of
such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been
served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which
he was paroled and thereafter his rasp shall continue to be dealt with in the same
manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.
It is clear from the legislative history of this provision that Congress intended to empower the Attorney General to parole an alien
for the purpose of prosecution. See H.R. Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong.,
2d Sess., reprinted in 1952 U.S. Code Cong. and Ad. News 1653,
1706. We have rejected the contention that only an applicant for
admission can be paroled. Matter of Accardi, 14 I&N Dec. 367 (31A
1978). The statute specifies that when the purpose of parole has
been served, the alien ShAll be returned to the custody from which
paroled and his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same
manner as that of any other applicant for admission. When parole
is revoked, the applicant is, in theory of law, on the threshold of
initial entry. Leng May Ma v. Barber,
357 U.S. 185 (1958).
The Act does not provide, and the Service does not contend, that
an alien paroled into the United States automatically becomes an
applicant for admission upon termination of his parole. Rather,
once the purpose of parole has been served and parole has been terminated, the alien must be given a reasonable opportunity to
depart unless there is evidence that he is an applicant for admission. Matter of Accardi, .supra; see also United States ex rel. Bradley
v. Watkins,
163 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1947). A parolee who cannot or
will not depart from the United States will no doubt at some point
become subject to exclusion proceedings as an applicant for admission. We do not here define that point but hold only that it does
not arise until after the parolee has been given a fair and reasonable opportunity to depart.
We are not satisfied that Mr. Badalamenti is an applicant for admission to the United States. He was brought here against his will
and he insists that he is not an applicant for admission. The only
evidence offered by the Service to prove that he is an applicant for
626
Interim Decision #3057
admission is his failure to depart within the time allotted him by
the Service. That time was approximately 7 days. Time alone, especially a relatively short period of time such as is involved here, is
not diapositive of the issue. Also relevant are the alien's efforts to
depart and any particular difficulties the alien may have in departing. Mr. Badalamenti contends that he made every effort to depart
and that the Government "reneged on its agreement and prevented
his departure to Paraguay."
Mr. Badalamenti attempted to submit evidence regarding these
matters, but the immigration judge would not receive it. The immigration judge erred. Therefore, we will remand the record to allow
the applicant an opportunity to submit evidence of his efforts to
depart from the United States. Mr. Badalamenti also now claims
that he has received written notice from a country willing to
accept him. This evidence may also be submitted to the immigration judge. Any evidence that the United States Government impeded his efforts to depart should weigh against a finding that he
was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to depart. If on
remand the immigration judge determines that Mr. Badalamenti
was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to depart, exclusion proceedings should be terminated as premature.
ORDER: The record is remanded to the immigration judge for
further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and the
entry of a new decision.
627
