Gamez

Gamez v. Ashcroft

Good Law
104 F. App'x 118
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 27, 2004Nos. 03-72172California324 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

1. The BIA did not err in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen. Such relief is foreclosed because petitioners did not leave the country within the voluntary departure period. Their failure to post the required bond automatically vacated their voluntary departure order, 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26 (c)(3), but does not allow them to avoid the ten-year bar to relief imposed on aliens “permitted to depart voluntarily [who] fail [to do so] within the time period specified,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d).

2. The BIA was not required to give petitioners oral notice of the penalties for failing to leave within the time specified in their voluntary departure order. See id. (“The order permitting the alien to depart voluntarily shall inform the alien of the penalties [for failing to leave in time].”). The written notice the BIA provided petitioners was adequate. See De Martinez v. Ashcroft, No. 02-73939, 2004 WL 1486028, at *5 (9th Cir. July 2, 2004).

3. The filing of a motion to reopen does not automatically toll the period of voluntary departure. The court “retains equitable jurisdiction to stay the voluntary departure period,” but for this power to be exercised, petitioner must show “a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.