Myers

Before: HARRY PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON, and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Order; Dissent by Judge IKUTA.

Mr. Myers's motion to stay issuance of the mandate pending adjudication of his motion to reopen before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is GRANTED. See Aguilar-Escobar v. INS, 136 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998) (staying the mandate until the petitioner's application before the BIA is disposed of); Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984) (staying the mandate sixty days to allow time for the petitioner to seek relief from the BIA and for such further time as is required for disposition of the application before the BIA); Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000) (staying the mandate ninety days so that the petitioner can file a motion to reopen before the BIA); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985) (staying the man-date sixty days to allow time for the petitioner to file a motion to reopen before the BIA and once filed, staying the mandate for such further time as is necessary for the disposition of the motion by the BIA).

Should the BIA grant the motion to reopen, the mandate will be stayed pending its disposition of the…

dissenting:

Once again a panel of this court elects to interfere with the normal procedures of the Department of Homeland Security and the applicable regulatory framework, and in the process “provide[s] a windfall for an alien who happens to appeal to this court, not available to aliens who do not happen to appeal.” Valderrama v. INS, 260 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.2001).

This panel adjudicated the legal issues in Myers’s claim and rendered its decision on October 8, 2010. The subsequent petition for rehearing was denied, and Myers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. We granted a request to stay the mandate during the pendency of that petition. Certiorari was denied on October 3, 2011. Myers has received full consideration of his claims, and now the mandate should issue accordingly.

Myers seeks to reopen his case with the BIA, citing changes in the law. That is his right, as it would be the right of any other similarly situated alien likewise affected by the fundamental change of the law he cites. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c); see also In re G-D-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1132, 1134 (BIA 1999) (sua sponte reopening may be warranted where there is a manifest turn…

ORDER

Mr. Myers’s motion to stay issuance of the mandate pending adjudication of his motion to reopen before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is GRANTED. See Aguilar-Escobar v. INS, 136 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998) (staying the mandate until the petitioner’s application before the BIA is disposed of); Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984) (staying the mandate sixty days to allow time for the petitioner to seek relief from the BIA and for such further time as is required for disposition of the application before the BIA); Kkourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000) (staying the mandate ninety days so that the petitioner can file a motion to reopen before the *1179 BIA); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985) (staying the mandate sixty days to allow time for the petitioner to file a motion to reopen before the BIA and once filed, staying the mandate for such further time as is necessary for the disposition of the motion by the BIA).

Should the BIA grant the motion to reopen, the mandate will be stayed pending its disposition of the case. Should the BIA deny the motion, the mandate will issue immediately. The parties shall…