The Honor able Da n Aar on Polst er, U nited States District J udg e for the Northe rn District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0259n.06 Filed: Apr il 3, 2009 No. 08-3608 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

ADOLF O VALLEJO -P ANTOJA, ) ) Pet i ti o n er , ) PE T I T I O N FO R R E VI E W O F A ) F IN AL OR

DE R O F THE B OA RD OF v. ) IM M IG RA TIO N A P P EA LS ) ER IC H. H OLD ER , U NI TED STA TES ) AT TOR NE Y G EN ER

AL , )

) ) Respondent. )

BEFORE: K

ETHL EDGE and WHIT E, Circuit Judges; and POLST ER, DistrictJudge. * Dan Aaron P olster, D istrictJudge. T h e Bo ard of I mmigration Appeals dismissed P et i t i o n er ’s ap p ea l o f t h e Imm i gra t i o n J u d ge’ s d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n t o re o p en re m o v al p ro ce ed i n gs under the I mmigration and Nationality Act. Petitioner see ks review o f t h e Bo ard of I mmigration A p p e a l s ’ d e c i s i o n . B e c a u s e t h e B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d isc re tio n in dismiss ing Petitioner’ s appea l, we deny the petition for re view. I. Petitioner Adolfo Vallejo- Pantoja (“Petitioner” ), a c itiz en of Mex ico, enter ed the United States without authorization on M arc h 1, 1 9 88. On April 16, 2007, the De partment of H omeland2

Se c ur ity (“ DH S” ) p e rs on a lly

se rv e d Pe tit ion e r w itha

No tic e to App e a r, c ha

rg inghim purs ua nt t o Section 212(a) (6)( A)(i) of the I mm ig r a ti o n a n d N a ti o n a li ty A c t ( “ I N A”) , 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6) (A)( i), with being remova

ble f o r i lleg ally

enter ing the country

without having be en admitted or pa roled. Petitioner initi ally

appear ed bef

ore a n I mmigration J udg e on May 1, 2007, wher e he w as advised of the nature and purpose of the he aring , his ri ght to counsel, and fr ee le g al servic es available to him. During the hea ring , Petitioner admitted the fac tual alleg ations ag ainst him and

conce ded that he w as re movable. The I mmigration J udg e then informed Petitioner of his potential elig ibilit y for r elief unde r Section 240A(b) (1) of the I NA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) , Cance llation of Re mov a l and

Ad jus tme nt o f S ta tus fo r C e rt a in N on -P e rm a ne nt R e sid e nts

. Pursuant to the inf

o rm at i o n provided by

the I mmigration J udg e, Petitioner applied f or

canc ellation of remova l. Petitioner err oneously attempted to f ile For m E OI R 42A , Cance llation of Removal for L awf

ul Permane nt Residents, rathe r t han Form EOI R 42B, Canc ellation of Removal for Non- Permane nt Residents. The I mmigration J udg e provide d the cor rec t form an d , afte r Petitioner reque sted the opportunity to seek co u n sel, set a he aringdate f or filing the form a

nd

a pp e ari ngwi th c ouns e l. Th e he a ri ngwa s p os tpo ne d tw ic e . F ir st, be c a us e P etition e r d id n ot h a ve c ouns e l or his completed application; then beca use backg round chec ks had not be en perf ormed. The he aringwas eventua lly

held on September

25, 2007, at which time Petitioner re prese nted he no l o n g er soug ht

canc ellation of re moval and instea d s o u gh t voluntary depar ture fr om the court. The I mmigration Judg e e xpla ine d th a t if he did no t se e k c a nc e llatio n of re mov a l un de r S e c tio n 2 40 A( b) (1 ), 8 U .S. C. § 1229b(b)( 1), he w ould lose t h e o p p o rt unity to pursue re lief under

this section in the future. Pe ti ti o n e r a c kn o w le d g e d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d th e c o n s e qu e n c e o f h is r e qu e s t. A c c o r d in g ly , theUnder 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) , the B I A ca n only reope n a ca se whe re it re ndere d a 1 decision. 3 I mmi g ratio n Jud g e g ra

nte d Pe tit ioner’s reque st, g ivi nghim un til Janu a ry

22 , 2 00 8, to v olu

nta ri ly depar t the United States. The Immigration Judge ’s g rant of pre -orde r voluntary depar ture wa ived appea l to the Boa

rd of Immigration Appeals (“ BIA”)

. On J anuar

y 23, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion to reope n his removal proc eeding s (“motion to reope n” or “ motion”) to a pply for canc ellation of remova l unde r Section 240A(b) (1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)( 1). The Immigration J udg e denie d Pe t i t i o n er ’s m otion on Febr uary 6, 2008, on two g rounds. Fir st, the motion t o reope n was not timely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)( 1) as it was f iled more than ninety day s afte r t he underly ing r emoval ruling . Second, by not voluntarily

depar ting by J anuar y 22, 2008, Petitioner was statutorily ineligible f

or ca ncellation of r emo v al u n d er Section 240B( d)(1) (B ) of the I

NA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d) (1)( B)

. Petitioner filed a notice of appe al with the Board of I mmigration Appeals on Mar ch 5, 2008. Petitioner argued that his motion to re open was timely under Sec tion 240B(d) (1)( B) of the I NA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1) (B ), and r equeste d that the B I A su a s po ntere op e n h is r e mov a l pr oceed in gs . Th e B I A a ff

ir me d the ho ldi ng of the I mmi g ra tio n J ud g e . Th e B I A r

ule d th a t Pe tit ion e r’ s mo tio n to reope n was untimely

beca use it was due on or

befor e De cembe r 26, 2007, ninety day s from the I mmigration J udg e’s g rant of voluntar y depar ture; Petitioner was ine ligible f or ca ncel l at i o n of

re mov a l be c a

us e he fa ile d to c omp ly

wi th t he vo lunt a ry

de pa rt ur e ; and it c ou ld n ot su a s

po nte reope n the ca se beca

use, under

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) , Petitioner’s ac cepta nce of voluntary depar ture and wa iver of a

ppeal mea

nt the BI A d i d n o t rende r a de cision in the matter and the ref ore la cked jur isd ic tio n. Mo re ov e r, the B I A not e d tha t eve n if it had the po we r to re op e n, Pe tit ion e r f a ile d to 1Pe tit ion e r d oe s n ot c ha lle ng e the B I A’ s d e c isi on that it c ou ld n ot sua sponte reope n the 2 case beca use it did not render

a dec ision in t he matter

.

4 pr e se nt a n e xce pti on a l situatio n warr a nti ng re op e nin g , as Pet iti on e r ha d many op po rt un iti e s to fi le

a pr op e r c anc e llatio n o f r e mov a l. II. The B I A’s denia l of a motion to reopen is re viewed f or abuse of di scre tion. See H addad v. Gonzales , 437 F.3d 515, 517 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Discre tion is abused when the BIA denied the motion

“ wi tho ut a

ra tio na l e xplanatio n, ine xplic a bly de pa rt e d f ro m e sta bli sh e d p oli cie s, or re ste d [it s decis io n ] o n a n im

p e r mi s s ib le b a s is s u c h a s in v id io u s d is c r im in a ti o n a g a in s t a p a rti c u la r r ace or g roup.” Id . (interna l quotation marks and citations omitted). Petitioner argues that the BIA abused its discr etion by denying his motion to r eopen for be ing untimely an d f a il in g to r

u le o n h is mo ti o n to w it

h dr a w h is r e qu e s t f

o r v o lu n ta r y d e p a rtu r e . He contends that unde r Dada v . Mukase y , 128 S.Ct . 2307 (2008), he should have be en per mitted an op po rt un ity to f ile a mot ion to r e op e n a

nd wi thd ra w h is r e qu e st f

or vo lun tary

de pa rt ur e be c a us e his motion and withdrawa l reque st were made pr ior to the ex piration of the voluntary depar ture pe riod. 2 We find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in af firming t h e I mmigration J udg e’s d e c i s i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 0 0 3

. 2 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) , “ [ a ] m o t i o n t o r e o p e n m u s t b e f i l e d w i t h i n 9 0 d a ys of the date of e ntry

of a f inal administrative orde r of r emoval, depor tation, or ex clusion.” The I mmigration J udg e g rante d an orde r of voluntar y depar ture on Septembe r 25, 2007. Petitio ner’ s ninety day period to file a

motion to reopen would have expired on Dec ember 24, 2007; however , be c a us e De c e mbe r 2 4 a

nd 25 we re fe de ra l ho lid a y s, Pe tit ion e r h a d unti l D e c e mbe r 2 6, 20 07 , to fi le h i s m o t i o n . P e t i t i o n e r d i d n o t f i l e h i s m o t i o n t o r e o p e n u n t i l J a n u a r y 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , w e l l a f

t e r t h e n i n e t y-5

day period ha d expired. Rely ing on Dada , Petitioner asserts that his motion to reopen wa s timely filed bec ause it wa s filed bef ore the voluntary

depar ture date. Even if the m o t i o n t o re open wa s filed prior to the voluntary depar ture date, a c ontention discussed and re jected inf ra , th e Sup re me Court ’s ho ldi ngin Dada do e s n ot s up po rt

the pr op os it io n th a t th e de a dli ne fo r P e tit ion e r’ s mo tio n to re op e n s ho uld have be e n th e vo lun tary

de pa rt ur e date a nd

no t ni ne ty

da y s su bs e qu e nt t o th e or de r o f r e mov a l. I n Dada , the BI A af

firmed a n I mmigration J udg e’s g rant of voluntar y depar ture, orde ring Dada to depar t within thi rty

day s. Da da , 128 S.Ct . at 2311. B efor e the e nd of that per iod, Dada soug ht to withdraw his voluntary depar ture re quest and filed a

timely motion to reopen re moval p ro cee dings. Id

. A f

t e r t h e v o l u n t a r

y d e p a rtu r e p e r i o d

e xp i r e d , t h e B I A d e n i e d D a d a ’ s r e qu e s t, holding that a

n alien who has b een g rante d voluntary depar ture but does not depa

rt within the voluntary depar ture period is statutorily

barr ed fr om rec eiving a status adjustment. Id . at 2312. The Supreme Court r ever sed and rema nded, holding that an “alien must be permitted t o wi t h d raw, unilatera lly , a voluntary

depar ture request before ex piration of the de parture period, without reg ard to the underlying me rits of the motion to reopen.” Id . at 2319. Unlike the Dada p e t i t i o n e r ’ s m o t i o n , P e t i t i o n e r ’ s m o t i o n t o r e o p e n w a s n o to n l y u n t i m e l y, it was filed after

his vo lun tary

de pa rt ur e date . U nd e r S e c tio n 2 40 B (d )( 1) (B ) o f t he I NA , 8 U .S. C. § 1 22 9c(d)(1 )(B), “ if

a n a lie n is pe rm itt e d to de pa rt vo lun tari ly

un de r t his se c tio n a

nd vo lun tari ly fails to depar

t the Unit ed S tates wit hin the time period spec ified...[he] shall be ineligible for a per iod of 10 y ear s to rece ive any further relief under this section and sections 1229b, 1255, 1258, and 1259 of this titl e.” Section 1229b contains provisions f or canc ellation of remova l a nd adjustment of an alien’s status. B y not filing his motion to reope n befor e his voluntary depar ture date of January

22,6

2008, Petitioner is not elig ible for canc ellation of his r emoval or for adjustment of his status for ten y e ars . Wh ile Pe tit ion e r a rgue s th a t he fi le d h is m oti on be fo re his vo lun tary de pa rt ur e date , the re is no basis for this contention. The time stamp on Petition er ’s motion is dated January 23, 2008. Petitioner dated the motion J anuar y 21, 2008, but argues that he c ould not file the motion on January 21 , 2 00 8, be c a

us e of the Mart in Luth e r Ki ng Jr. fe de ra l ho lid a y , a nd that it wa s in ste a d “ se nt o ut”

on J anuar y 22, 2008. Howeve r, Petitioner has not e x plained why the date stamp on h i s motion should be ig nored a

nd t h e d at e o f filing should instead be conside red January 21 or January

22. Petitioner’s motion to reopen wa s theref ore f iled afte r his voluntar

y depar ture date. The B I A thus did not abuse i t s d i scre tion in determining that Petiti oner w as not elig ible for c ance llation of

re mov a l. Finally , we reje ct Petitioner’s argument that the BIA never ruled on his moti on to withdraw his reque st for voluntary depar ture. Neither the motion to reope n befor e the Immigration J udg e nor the notice o f ap p eal to the BI A re fer to a motion to withdraw the re quest for voluntar y depar ture. As Petitioner did not bring the issue befor e the B I A, the BIA obviously did not a buse its discretion in not ruling on the motion to withdraw the r equest for voluntary

depar ture. III . Fo r t h e reasons set for

th su pra , t h e B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n o f A p p e a l s d i d n o t a b u s e its discretion in dismiss ing Petitioner’ s appea l of the I mmigration J udg e’s de cision. Acc ording ly , we deny the petition for re view.