The Supreme Court has determined that if the 60th day of a voluntary departure period falls on a weekend, the deadline to depart is extended to the next business day.
The full text of Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi can be found here:
Viewing entries tagged
voluntary departure
The Fourth Circuit has deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that receipt of stolen property offenses constitute crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) if the defendant knows the property was stolen, even if the statutes do not require the defendant to intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property. The court further agreed that Virginia’s receipt of stolen property statute matches the definition of a CIMT. The court remanded because the Immigration Judge failed to advise the petitioner of the requirement of posting a voluntary departure bond before granting him voluntary departure.
The full text of Solis-Flores v. Garland can be found here:
The Tenth Circuit has determined that if a non-citizen is granted voluntary departure, and wishes to file a motion to reopen, he must do so by the 60th day of his voluntary departure period, even if that day falls on a weekend.
The full text of Velazquez v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110915861.pdf
An amended opinion can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110969149.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that service of a Notice to Appear that is missing the time and date of the first removal hearing does not stop the accrual of physical presence for voluntary departure, even if the respondent is subsequently served with a notice of hearing containing the missing information.
The full text of Matter of M-F-O- can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has concluded that “[w]here a notice to appear fails to specify the time or place of a respondent’s initial removal hearing, the subsequent service of a notice of hearing specifying this information perfects the notice to appear and ends the accrual of physical presence for purposes of voluntary departure.”
The full text of Matter of Viera-Garcia can be found here:
The Fifth Circuit has determined that when the Board of Immigration Appeals remands a case solely for consideration of voluntary departure, there is a final order of removal for the purpose of judicial review. Thus, the court had jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals decision.
The full text of Holguin-Mendoza v. Lynch can be found here:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-60294-CV0.pdf
The Sixth Circuit has determined that when the Board of Immigration Appeals dismisses an appeal, but remands a case to an Immigration Judge solely for the purpose of entering an order of voluntary departure, there is a final removal order for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction. If the petitioner does not appeal at that time, but instead waits for the Immigration Judge to enter a decision, and then appeals that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the circuit court will not have jurisdiction over the first Board of Immigration Appeals decision (on the merits of the removal proceedings).
The full text of Hih v. Lynch can be found here: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0032p-06.pdf