H on or abl e T h omas A. V ar l an , U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e Eas t er n D i s t r i ct of T en n es s ee , s i t t i n g by * d esi gnat i o n. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0744n.06 F iled: October 18, 2007 Case No. 05- 4639 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT ARTOR SHTYL LAKU , P etitioner -Appellant,
v. ALBERTO GONZ ALES, Un ited States At to r ne y G e ne r al, Respondent-Appellee.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETIT ION F OR RE VI EW F ROM A REINSTATEMENT OR DE R O F THE DE P AR TM EN T OF HOM ELA ND SEC URITY

BEFORE: BATCHELDER and GILMA N, Circ uit Jud ges; VA RLAN, District Judge. * THOMAS A. VARLAN, District Judge. Petitioner Artor Shty llaku petitions thi s Court for
re vie w o f t

he re ins ta te me nt o f a

re mov a l or der e nte re d b y the De pa rtme nt o f H ome land

Se c ur ity (“D HS”). F or the re asons that follow, we DENY the petition for re view. I. BACK GR OUND Artor Shty llaku (“Shty llaku”) is a native and citiz en of Albania who fir st entere d the United States, using a

fra udulent p as s p o rt, on Fe bruar y 17, 1997. Shty llaku applied for asylum and wi thh old ingof

re mov a l a ft e r t

he fo rm e r Immi g ra

tio n a nd Natur a lizatio n Se rv ic e (“ I NS” ) pla c e d h im into removal proc eeding s. On J uly 23, 1998, an immigr ation judge (“I J ”) issued an order of r emoval denying Shty llaku’s applicat i o n s fo r relief . The I J also g rante d him the privileg e of voluntar y2

de pa rt ur e , w itha n a lte rn a tiv e or de r of re mov a l to Al ba nia . Sh tyllaku

a pp e a le d th e I J’s d e c isi on

to the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) . On J une 28, 2002, the B I A af firmed the I J ’s dec ision. The B I A furthe r ordered Sht y llaku’s vol untary depar ture withi n 30 day s. Otherw ise, he would be
remove d as provided in the I J ’s orde r and subjec t to penalties, including ineligibility for a period of 10 y e a rs fo r a

ny fu rt he r r e lie f f

ro m r e mov a l. Thoug h Shty llaku attempted to leave the United States within the 30 -d ay p er i od, he wa s
un a ble to do so du e to the un a va ila bil ity of a ir lin e tic ke ts to Al ba nia
. He a lso discov ered th at his passport had r ece ntly

expired and re quired rene wal befor e he could to r eturn to Albania. On or about J uly 26, 2002, only

day s befor e the voluntar

y d ep ar t u re deadline of July 29, 2002, Shty llaku filed
a re quest with the I

NS District Direc tor for a

60-day extension t o his voluntary depar ture pe riod. On Aug ust 8 , 2 0 0 2 , S h t y l laku marr ied Gloria Rios, a United States c itiz en. He then left the U nited States on or about Aug ust 26, 2002, near ly a month a fter his 30- day period for voluntar y depar ture ha d e xpir e d. Up on

re tur nin g to A lba

nia , Sh tyllaku

fi le d a n a pp lic a tio n f

or a no nim mig ra

nt v isa to return to the U nited States based on his marr iag e to a United States citizen. De spite direct que stions that appea

red on the visa application, Sht y ll ak u fa i l ed to disclose that he ha d previously been the subject of a

deportation hearing
. The Americ an Embassy in Tirana g rante d his application on J une 25, 2003, and Shty llaku ree ntere d the United States on or a bout J uly 2, 2003. On Aug ust 18, 2004, Sht y llaku filed an a pplication to adjust his status to that of a per manent
re sid e nt. On June 2, 20 05 , Shtyllaku wa s inf or me d at an ini tia l hea

ri ng that he wo uld ne e d to a pp ly for a waiver due to hi s initial entry to the Unit ed S tates i n 1997. At the s econd hear ing on D ece mber 6, 2005, the DHS issued a Notice of I ntent to Shty llaku and ente red a Dec ision to R einstate Prior Orde r of De portation on the basis that he stay ed beyond the 30 d ay s permitted for voluntar y3

d e p a rtu r e a n d

r e e n t e r e d t h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s w i t h o u t t h e A t t o r

n e y G e n e r a l ’ s p e r

m i s s i o n . S u

b s e qu e n t l y, Shty llaku petitioned this Court for revie w of the reinstateme nt of the remova l or der enter ed by the DHS. II. DI SCU SSIO N A. Jurisdi ction Uni te d St a te s I mm ig r a ti o n a n d Cu s to ms E n f o r c e me n t ( “ I CE ” ) w it

h in th e D H S h as the authority to issue reinstatement or ders pur suant to I mmigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA”) § 241(a) (5), 8 U.S.C
. § 1231(a) (5) (2000). Thi s Court has jurisdiction to review I CE’s reinstateme nt order s pursuant to I

NA § 242(a )(1) , 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)
. Se e als o W ar ne r v . A sh c ro

ft , 381 F.3d 53 4, 53 6- 37 (6 th C ir . 200 4) (r e vie wi ng the re ins ta te me nt of a n ord e r o f r e mov a l) ; Bejjani v . I NS , 271 F.3d 670, 674 ( 6th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Fernande z-Vargas v. Gonzales , 126 S. Ct . 2422 (2006) (finding that the authority to revie w orders of removal also applies to order s of reinstateme nt). I n g ener al, a pr ior order o f re m o v al i s not reviewa ble once reinstated. I

NA § 241(a) (5), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) (5) ( “I f the Attorne y Gene ral finds that a

n alien has r eente red the United States illeg ally

afte r havingbeen r emoved or having depar ted voluntarily , under a

n order of
remova l, the prior orde r of r emoval i s re i n s t ated from its original date and is not subject to being reope ned or r eviewe d, the alien is not elig ible and may not apply for any relief under this cha

pter, and the a lien shall be re mo v ed under the prior or der at any time after

the re entry .”). H oweve r, amendments made to the I NA in 2005 permit the validity of the underly ing order to be cha lleng ed on constitutional or leg al g rounds. I NA § 242(a )(2) (D), 8 U .S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (D). B. Stand ard of Review4

I n the pre sent ca se, the c onstitut ional and statutory claims are subject to de novo revie w. See De nk o v . I NS , 3 51 F .3 d 7 17 , 7 26 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) ; see also Neziraj v. Gonzales , 207 F. App’ x 550, 555 (6th Cir. 2006). However, the Court give s defe renc e to the Attorne y Gene ral’s inter

preta tion of t he I NA. IN S v . A gu irr e -A gu irr e , 5 2 6 U. S
. 4 1 5 , 4 2 4 -2 5 (1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g Chevron, U.S.A., I nc. , v. Na tu r a l R es . D e

f. Co u n c il

. , I

n c. , 467 U. S. 8 37 , 8 43 (1 98 4) ). Judic ia l de fe re nc e is p a rt ic ula rl y appropr iate in light of

the I NA’s e x press provision that t he “determination and ruling by the Attorney Gene ral with re spect to al l q u es t i ons of law sha ll be controlling .” I NA § 103(a )(1) , 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a) (1). C. DHS’s Reinstatem ent of the 1998 Rem oval Order Shty llaku argues that the DH S improperly reinstated the 199 8 remova l order. T he I NA provides that an alien who ree nters the United S tates i lleg ally afte r leaving voluntar ily

under a n order of re moval “shall be r emoved unde r the prior order at any time after

the reentry .” I

NA § 241(a )(5) , 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) . I n deciding whether an alien is subjec t to the statute, an immigration officer shall determine: (1) “[ w]hether the alien has been subject to a prior or der of remova l,” (2) “ whether the alien is in fac t an alien who was pr eviously remove d, or who de parte d voluntarily while under an orde r of e x clusion, deportation, or r emoval,” a nd (3) “ [w] hether the alien unlawf ully ree ntere d the Un ite d S t a t e s . ” 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 2 4 1
. 8 ( a ) ( 2 0 0 6 )
. T h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l m a y p e r

m i t a n a l ie n to depar t voluntarily

the United States at the conclusion of remova l pr ocee dings if cer tain conditions
are met in addition to the I J enter ing a n order g ranting voluntary

depar ture. See I

NA § 240B (b)( 1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(1) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)
. “Authority to extend the t ime within which to depa rt voluntarily

specifie d initially

by an im migr ation judge or t he [BI A] is onl y within the jurisdiction”5

of the DH S District D i rector, the De puty Ex ecutive A ssociate Commissioner for De tention and Removal, or the Dir ector

of the Of fice of Juvenile Affair s. 8 C.F.R. 1240.26(f). Shty llaku opines that the orig inal order of re moval ag ainst him was invalid beca use he w as g rante d p ermiss ion to depart voluntarily from the United States. This a rg ument is unpersuasive beca use an a lien is stil l subject to an order for remova l, for purposes of reinstatement, reg ardle ss of whether there was pe rmission to voluntarily depar t. I NA § 241(a)(5) , 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5)
. The DH S’ s a bil ity to re ins ta te a pr ior or de r of re mov a l a

pp lie s e qu a lly

to a lie ns wh o a

re re mov e d a s it does to those that ar e allowed to depar t voluntarily
. Rafaelano v. W ilson , 471 F.3d 1091, 1097 n.5 (9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )
. Sh ty

ll a k u w a s s u b je c t to a v a li d o r d e r o f r e mo v a l a n d g iv e n th e privileg e of voluntary depar ture a s an alter

native to removal by the gover nment. Thus, the fa ct he wa s permitted to depar t voluntarily

does not limit the applica bility o f the re instatement provision in the prese nt
case . Shty llaku additionally argues that the orig inal order of remova l was invalid beca use the I NS did not respond to his request for a 60-da y extension to the voluntary depar ture pe riod. Shty llaku’s argument fails because a pending reque st for an extension of the voluntary depar ture pe riod does not invalidate, toll, or otherwise impact a r emoval orde r. See Dekolade nu v. Gonzales , 459 F.3d 500, 506-07 (4th Cir. 2006) (f inding that f

iling a motion to reope n an o rd er o f removal does not
a uto ma tic a lly

tol l th e vo lun tary

de pa rt ur e pe ri od ); J

up ite r v . A sh c ro

ft , 396 F.3d 487, 491- 92 (1st Cir. 2005) (“ The fa ct that an una djudicated motion is pendin g d o es n o t
. . . excuse a fa ilure to depa rt
vo lun tari ly

purs ua nt t o a n e xistin g or de r. ” ). Furthe rm or e , th e I NS h a d n o d

uty to r e sp on d to Shty llaku’s reque st. See M ardones v. M

cElroy , 197 F.3d 619, 624 (2d C ir. 1999) (finding that the “I NS was under

no statutory

or re g ulatory

obliga t ion to respond to petitioner’s re quest for a n6

extension”). Acc ording ly , the mere reque st for a n extension of the voluntary depar ture pe riod neve r inv a lid a te d o r t oll e d Sh tyllaku ’s or ig ina l or de r o f r e mov a l. Shty llaku fu rt he r a rgue s th a t r e ins ta te me nt w a s im pr op e r b e c a

us e he did

no t un lawf

ull y
ree nter the U nited States. Specifica lly , he sug g ests that his entry was not illeg al in that he possessed a K- 3 nonimmigra

nt visa. An alien remove d from the United States is prohibited from re enter ing the country

for a period of at least five y ear s unless he re ceive s permissi o n t o return from the Attorney Gene ral. See I

NA§ 2 12 (a )( 9) (A )( ii) -( iii ), 8 U .S. C. § 11 82 (a )( 9) (i i) -(i ii ); 8 C. F .R. 12 12 .2 (a ). Shty llaku

re e nte re d th e Un ite d St a te s le ss t ha n a y e a r a ft e r h is vo lun tary

de pa rt ur e in Au g us t of 20 02 . T hu s, Shty llaku ’s re e ntr y wa s un lawf

ul a bs e nt pe rm iss ion

of the At tor ne y Ge ne ra l. Entry throug h inspection by

an immigr ation office r does not take the pl ace of authorization from the Attorne y

Gene ral. See U

nited States v. Sanche

z-Milmam , 305 F.3d 310, 313- 14 (5th Cir. 2002) (“ [E] ven if a

n alien succ essfully

obtains a visa fr om the State Depa rtment, it does not ac t as a substitute for the c onsent of the Attorne y Gene ral” ); United States v. Martus , 138 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir. 1998) (“T here is no statute or regulation that expressly au t h orizes a borde r g uard to g rant the
re qu ir e d e xpre ss c on se nt o f t he At tor ne y Ge ne ra l.” ); Lazarescu v. United States , 199 F.2d 898, 901 (4th Cir. 1952) (finding that entry throug h inspection by an immigration of fice r did not make e ntry lawful). As Shty llaku ree ntere d without obtaining per mission of the Attorney

Gene ral, his re entry
wa s n ot a uth or ize d a

nd , th e re fo re , il le g a l. F ina lly , Sh tyllaku

mis t a k e n l y p re su me s th a t th e va lid ity of the K- 3 n on imm ig ra

nt v isa sh ou ld impact this Court’s analy sis. As prev i o u sly discussed, Shty llaku’s entry was illeg al re g ardle ss of wh e the r t he vis a ob ta ine d w a s v ali d. As pr ov ide d b y the I NA , it wa s n e c e ssa

ry fo r S hty llaku to obtain permission fro m t h e Attorney Gene ral prior

to ree ntering the United States. See I NA §7

212(a) (9)( A)(ii)- (iii ), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)( 9)(ii)-( iii). Bec ause no suc h permission was obtained, Shty llaku’s J uly

2, 2003 entry

into the United States was illeg al despite his p o s session of a K- 3 nonimmigra

nt visa issued by

the Amer ican Emba ssy

in Tirana. D. The 19 98 Re m ov al O r de r and D ue P r oc e ss Shty llaku also makes the c onstitut ional claim that the District Direc tor’s failure to respond to his request for

an ext en s i o n o f time to depart voluntarily amounted to a due proce ss violation. Although r emoval proc eeding s of aliens re qu i re due proce ss, W arner , 381 F.3d at 538 (quoting S h a u g h n es s y v . U n it e d S ta te s e x r e l. Meze i , 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953)), f or due pr ocess to attac h, there must be a cog nizable liberty or prope rty

interest at stake
. Matthews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). “[A]l iens have no fundame ntal rig ht to discretionar y relief from re moval for pur poses of du e pr oc e ss a

nd e qu a l pr ote c tio n. . . . B e c a us e the re is n o c on sti tut ion a lly pr ote c te d li be rt

y int e re st in the discretionar

y privileg e of voluntary depar ture, the due proce ss claim fails.” Tovar-Landin v. As hc ro ft , 361 F.3d 1164, 1167 ( 9th Cir. 2004). The privilege of vol untary depar ture is a matter

of administrative discre tion; therefor e, it is not a proper ty or l iberty interest. Jupiter , 396 F.3d at 492 (finding no proper

ty interest for

due proc ess purposes in lig ht of the discre tionary nature of voluntary depar ture); Al i v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 6 6 F. 3 d 4 0 7 , 4 1 2 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Hu ic oc he a- Go me z v . I NS , 237 F.3d 696, 700 ( 6th Cir. 2001)) (finding no liberty interest in t he failure to g rant discr etionary relief like voluntary

depar ture). Acc ording ly , Shty llaku’s due proce ss r ights we re not violated be cause he had no liberty

or prope rty

interest at stake
. Fur thermore , “proof

of pre judice is nec essar

y to establish a due pr ocess violation in an immigra tion hearing .” W

arner , 381 F.3d at 539. Any alien who voluntarily depar ts under a remova l order and ther eaf

ter illeg ally

returns to the U nited States is subject to rei n s t at ement. I NA §8

24 1( a )( 5) , 8 U. S.C. § 123 1( a )( 5)
. Ev e n if Shtyllaku ha d de pa rt e d with in the a llo tte d pe ri od of tim e or the District Dire ctor ha d extended his time, he would have de parte d under a remova l order a

nd still have been subject to r einstatement of the prior remova l or der. There was no p re j u d i ce i n the Di str ic t D ir e c tor ’s fa ilure to r e sp on d to the e xten sio n r e qu e st a s is re qu ir e d to e sta bli sha du e pr oc e ss vio la tio n. Thus , Sh tyllaku c a nn ot p re va il o n h is d

ue pr oc e ss c la im. III . CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY the petition for re view.