2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-12-2008 

# Ro op ch and v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2033

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Roopch and v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1238. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1238NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 2033

AL E AH R OOP CH AND, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 97- 516- 785) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e M i r l ande Tadal Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay1, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FI SH E R and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay12, 2008)

OP I NI ON2

P E R C UR I AM A l eah Roopchand pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a de ci s i on byt he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) di s m i s s i ng herappea l fr om t he I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deni al of a m o tio n to re o p e n re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s . W e w ill d e n yh e r p e titio n . I . R oopchand, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of T r i ni dad and Tobago, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es o n F e b ru a r y2 6 , 2 0 0 0 . S h e t h e n f a i l e d t o d e p a r twh e n h e rn o n i mm i g r a n tv i s a e x p i r e d . At a hea r i ng befor e the I J , R oopchand a dm i t t ed thats he w as r emovabl e as char ged and r eques t ed vol unt arydepartur e. T he I J ’ s w r i t t en or derof N ovember17, 2005, s t at ed that R o o p c h a n d ’s “ a p p lic a tio n f o r v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re w a s g ra n te d u n til [ M a rc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 ] . . .

, w ith an alt ern ate O rde r of rem o v al t o T ri n idad an d T o b ag o . ” (A 1 5 8 (em p h asis o m itted).) T h e o rd e r f

u rth e r in d ica ted th a t th e p a rties w a iv e d th e ir rig h ts to a p p e a l. R oopchand a l l egedl ym arr i ed a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen on February23, 2006. She acc or di ngl yfi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen he rr emoval pr ocee di ngs on M ar ch 13, 2006, t o g e t h e rwi t h a n I - 1 3 0 p e t i t i o n a n d r e q u e s t s t o e x t e n d h e rv o l u n t a r yd e p a r tu r e p e r i o d . On M ay25, 2006, t he I J deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen be caus e i tw as notfi l ed w i t hi n t he appl i cabl e 90- dayt i m e per i od. T he I J concl uded thatherN ovember17, 2005 or der b e c a m e f in a l o n N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , b e c a u se b o th p a rties h a d w a iv e d th e ir a p p e llate r i ght s . T he B I A di s m i s s ed R oopchand’ s appea l on M ar ch 7, 2007. I texpr es s l yfound t hat , “[a ] l t hough herm ot i on w as fi l ed w i t hi n t he vol unt arydepartur e per i od, i tw as notW e h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r th is m a tter p u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W h ile g e n e ra lly 1 re v iew in g th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f a m o tio n to re o p e n f

o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n , w e re v iew its lega l con clus ion s d e n o v o . S ee , e.g., B arrios v . A tt ’yG en . , 3 9 9 F . 3 d 2 7 2 , 2 7 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 3 fi l ed w i t hi n t he 90- dayper i od fol l ow i ng t he [I J ’ s ] admi ni s t r at i vel yfi nal deci s i on” of No v e mb e r1 7 , 2 0 0 5 . ( A5 . ) Ro o p c h a n d f i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. I ti s u n d i s p u t e d b y t h e p a r t i e s t h a tm o t i o n s t o r e o p e n “ s h a l l b e f i l e d w i t h i n 9 0 d a ys o f th e d a te o f

e n tr yo f a f in a l a d m in is tr a tiv e o rd e r o f re m o v a l.” 8 U .S .C . §

1 1 2 2 9 a(c )(7)(C )(i ); see also 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 3 (b)(1 ). T h e B IA ag ree d w ith the IJ’s fin d ing that the N o v em b er 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 v o lun taryd ep arture a n d alt ern ate rem o v al ord er, cont ai ni ng an expr es s w ai verof the part i es ’ appel l at e r i ght s , w as fi nal as of N ovember 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , a n d th e re f

o re im m e d ia te ly trig g e re d th e 9 0 -d a yp e ri o d . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1241. 1( b) ( s t at i ng t hatan or derof r emoval becomes fi nal “[u] pon w ai verof appe al byt he r es pondent ”) . B eca us e the mot i on t o r eopen w as notfi l ed unt i l M ar ch 13, 2006, i tw as re je c te d a s u n tim e ly. H o w ev er, R o o p ch an d arg u es th at th e o rde r did n o t bec o m e f inal u n ti l her v o lun tary departur e per i od s ubs equent l yexpi r ed on M ar ch 17, 2006. I n advanc i ng t hi s t heory , s he re lies h e a v ilyo n a n a d m in istra tiv e re g u latio n sta tin g th a t an o rd e r o f re m o v a l sh a ll b e c o m e f

in a l: I f an i m m i gr at i on j udge i s s ues an al t ernat e or derof r emoval i n connec t i on w ith a g ran t of

v o lun taryd ep arture, up o n o v erstayo f th e v o lun tary4

d e p a rtu re p e rio d e x c e p t w h e re th e re sp o n d e n t h a s f iled a tim e lya p p e a l w ith t he [BIA ] . I n s uch a c as e, t he or ders hal l become fi nal upon an or derof r emoval byt he [BIA ] ort he A t t or neyG ener al , orupon over s t ayof any vol unt arydepartur e per i od gr ant ed orr ei ns t at ed byt he [BIA ] ort he A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. 8 C . F. R . § 1241. 1( f) . W e mustr ej ectt he theoryof fi nal i t yoffe r ed byR oopchand. She ci t es no j udi ci al oradmi ni s t r at i ve dec i s i on adopt i ng ( oreven a ddr es s i ng) her under s t andi ng of fi nal i t y . A s t he governm entpoi nt s out , t hi s C our texpr es s l yaddr es s ed 8 C . F. R . § 1241( f) i n t he cont extof det erm i ni ng w hethert her e w as a r equi s i t e fi nal admi ni s t r at i ve or derforpurpos es of j udi ci al r evi ew . I n O bal e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 453 F. 3d 151 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , t he B I A i s s ued an or deraff i r m i ng t he I J ’ s r emoval rul i ng and gr ant i ng the p eti ti o n er a n ad d it ion al 30 -da yv o lun taryd ep arture p eriod fro m the d ate o f th e B IA ’s or der . I d. at154. W e hel d t hat“the B I A ’ s aff i r m ance of [the I J ’ s r emoval ] det erm i nat i on e f f e c te d a ‘f

in a l’ o rd e r o n th e d a te o f th e B IA ’s d e c is io n .” Id . a t 1 6 0 (f o o tn o te o m itte d ). I n t he pr oces s , w e s peci fi cal l yr ej ect ed the not i on t hatt he admi ni s t r at i ve pr ovi s i on m eant t hatan or derdi d notbecome “fi nal ” unt i l t he pet i t i onerover s t ay ed the per i od for v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re . Id . at 1 5 7 -6 0 . B e c a u se th e re g u latio n “ w o u ld b e in c o n sis ten t w ith t he s t atut or ydefi ni t i on of a f i nal or derof r emoval i f appl i ed t o det erm i ne fi nal i t yfor p u rp o s e s o f

ju d ic ia l r e v ie w , w e d e c lin [ e d ] t o e n f o rc e it.” Id . a t 1 6 0 . E s peci al l ygi ven R oopchand’ s fai l ur e t o addr es s oreven c i t e ourpr evi ous deci s i on i n O bal e, t her e w oul d appea rt o be no l egi t i m at e r eas on w hyi t s r eas oni ng s houl d not appl yi n t he cont extof a mot i on t o r eopen. I n fac t , t he theoryof fi nal i t yoffe r ed by5

R oopchand r ender s herow n m ot i on t o r eopen pr ematur e bec aus e i tw as fi l ed bef or e her v o lun taryd ep arture d ate. B u t i f sh e h ad ac tuallyw ait ed u n ti l after h er v o lun tary departur e dat e t o fi l e the mot i on, s he w oul d t hen be s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e foradj us t m entof s t atus due t o herfai l ur e t o depart . See 8 U . S. C . § 1229c( d) ( 1) ( B ) . U ndert he c irc u m sta n c e s, th e a d m in istra tiv e re g u latio n sh e c ites “ m a yh a v e b e e n in ten d e d so lelyto s peci fyw hen an or derof r emoval m aybe exe cut ed” byi m m i gr at i on author i t i es . O bal e, 453 F. 3d at160 n. 9. A s w e furt herobs erved i n O bal e, “i f ther e i s no fi nal or derof r emoval unt i l ‘ over s t ayof anyvol unt arydepartur e per i od, ’ t hen ther e i s nevera fi nal o rd e r w h e n th e [ a lien ] v o lu n tar ilyd e p a rts in a tim e lyf a sh io n .” Id . S u c h a re su lt w o u ld a p p e a rn o to n l y a b s u r d b u t“ i n c o n s i s t e n tw i t h C o n g r e s s i o n a l i n t e n t . ” I d . F i n a l l y, R oo pch and w as not denied a fai r oppo rtun i t yt o o btai n rel i ef. O n the con t rary , she cho se t o r eques tt he pr i vi l ege of vol unt arydepartur e, and s he then had thr ee f ul l m ont hs fol l ow i ng t he I J ’ s N ovember17, 2005 vol unt arydepartur e and a l t ernat i ve r emoval or der in w h ic h to f

ile a tim e ly m o tio n to re o p e n . B u t s h e d id n o t d o s o . In lig h t o f

o u r p re v io u s ru lin g in O b a le, w e f in d th a t th e B IA (a n d th e IJ) p ro p e rly cal cul at ed the 90- dayt i m e per i od fora mot i on t o r eopen a nd t hen corr ect l ydet erm i ned th a t R o o p c h a n d ’s m o tio n to re o p e n m u s t b e d e n ie d a s u n tim e ly. III . F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.