Whether an alien had “entered” mattered because “important immigration provisions were keyed to an alien's ‘entry.’ ” Assa'ad v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir.2003). Aliens who had not yet entered the United States were subject to “exclusion” hearings.
Additionally, the procedure by which an alien is removed from the United States no longer turns on the physical location of the alien. See Assa'ad v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir.2003). “The distinction now turns on status rather than location. An alien in the United States who has been admitted is subject to deportability grounds, while an alien who has not, regardless of his or her location, is subject to inadmissibility grounds.
We review the BIA's denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Assa'ad v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). This standard of review "is limited to determining whether there has been an exercise of administrative discretion and whether the matter of exercise has been arbitrary or capricious."
In 1985, 1986, and 1991, Geach traveled to the United Kingdom for short visits, and prior to each trip, he applied for "advance parole" before leaving the United States. See Assa'ad v. United States Attorney General, 332 F.3d 1321, 1326-27 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining advance parole). On November 24, 1992, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), now known as the Department of Homeland Security, placed Geach in exclusion proceedings and charged him with being excludable under § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the INA because he is an alien who has been convicted of a controlled substance violation.