2005 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 10-27-2005 

# H a di 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 . 04-3343

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a nova 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 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " H a d i v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 335. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/335NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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. 04- 3343

____________ S U S I NUR S A

N T I HA D I, Petitioner v. AT TO RN EYGENE RA LOF TH E U NITE D STAT ES; SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURI TY, Re sp on dents

____________ O n P e tit io n f

o r re v iew o f

a n O rd e r o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls I N S N o. A 79 323 896

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) O ct ober25, 2005 B efore: S L O V ITE R , F ISH E R , and R O S E N N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed O ct ober27, 2005)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ R O SE N N , C i r cui tJ udge. Susi N ur s ant i H adi , a ci t i zen of I ndones i a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the det erm i nat i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng herappl i cat i on for asy lum an d w ith h o lding o f re m o v al un d er the Im m igrati o n an d N ati o n ali tyA ct (“IN A ”),2

8 U . S . C . § § 1 1 5 8 , 1 2 3 1 , an d p rotec ti o n u n d er A rt . III o f th e C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re ( “C A T ”) . T he B I A aff

i r m ed w i t houtopi ni on t he fi ndi ngs of the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) t hatH adi fai l ed t o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on, a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, or a li k eli h o o d o f to rtu re in In d o n esia. T h e IJ g ran ted H ad i’ s req u est fo r vo lun tary departur e. She w as s ubs equent l ygr ant ed a s t ayof deport at i on pendi ng r es ol ut i on of her p eti ti o n fo r rev iew , an d sh e a lso req u ested that this C o u rtex tend h er p eriod fo r vo lun tary departur e. W e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on forr evi ew w i t h r es pectt o t he cl ai m s foras y l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval undert he I N A , and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval undert he C A T , and decl i ne t o deci de H adi ’ s m ot i on t o ext end herper i od of vol unt arydepartur e forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. I. H adi i s a 32- y ear - ol d di vor ced f emal e fr om I ndones i a, w ho ent er ed the U ni t ed S tate s in late Ju n e , 2 0 0 0 , o n a to u rist v isa th a t ex p ire d in D e c e m b e r, 2 0 0 0 . S h e c u rre n tly r es i des i n Phi l adel phi a and w or ks ata pape rfac t or yi n N ew J er s ey . T he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) i ns t i tut ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs and gr ant ed hera hea r i ng befor e an I J . B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es , w e di s cus s onl yt he es s ent i al f a c ts . A therhear i ng, H adi t es t i fi ed and s ubm i t t ed document aryevi dence . T he t es t i m onyand evi dence es t abl i s hes t hats he i s ethni cal l yC hi nes e and a C hr i s t i an, and l i ke m an ysim il ar p eti ti o n ers, th at sh e a n d h er f am il yh av e b ee n su b

jected to d iscri m inato ry3

tr ea tm en t and crim inal ac ts atthe h an d s o f “ n ati v e In d o n esian s, ” to w h ich p o li ce o ff icers an d o ther g o v ern m en t of ficials w ere n o t veryresp o n sive . S h e testi fied that h er f am il y ’s s t or e had be en t ar get ed byvandal s and thi eves and thats he w as per s onal l yr obbed and assaul t ed o n the street s sever al t i m es byy ou ng Indon esi an m en. H adi cl ai m s that as a r es ul tof thes e i nci dent s , s he has a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on s uffi ci entt o qual i fy f o r a s y lu m . T he I J found thatH adi ’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um w as t i m el yfi l ed w i t hi n one y ear o f h er a rri v al i n the U n it ed S tat es. T h e IJ e x p resse d rese rva ti o n s, h o w ev er, ab o u t H ad i’ s cr edi bi l i t y . H e cha r act er i zed s om e of he rs t at ement s as i nher ent l yi ncr edi bl e, s uch as t hat n o n ati v e In d o n esian C atho li cs a tt en d ed h er c h u rch , an d that n o n ati v e In d o n esian s w ere t ar get ed forr obber i es r egar dl es s of thei rw eal t h. B utt he I J hel d t hateven i f the es s ent i al p o rt ion s w ere cre d it ed , H ad i had n o t est ab li sh ed a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on, and thats he ther efor e di d notqual i fyforas y l um orw i t hhol di ng of r emoval undert he I N A , 8 U . S. C . §§ 1158( b) ( 1) ; 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) ; 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) . H e al s o found t hats he had notes t abl i s hed anyl i kel i hood of t or tur e and ther efor e deni ed hercl ai m for w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al un der the C A T . 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 16 (c) . H e grant ed h er r equ est forvol unt arydepartur e on orbefor e M ar ch 10, 2003. T he B I A aff i r m ed w i t houtopi ni on o n Ju ly1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , an d e x ten d e d h e r p e rio d f o r v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re f o r 3 0 d a y s f

ro m its deci s i on. O n appea l , H adi ar gues t hats he pr ovi ded s uffi ci entand cr edi bl e evi dence of4

p e rse c u tio n to q u a lifyf o r a sy lu m , an d th a t th e B IA e rre d in a f f irm in g w ith o u t issu in g its ow n opi ni on beca us e the i s s ues r ai s ed byherpet i t i on w er e s o s ubs t ant i al t hatt hey r equi r ed the i s s uance of a w r i t t en opi ni on. A l t hough w e gr ant ed H adi ’ s m ot i on t o s t ay depor t at i on pendi ng r es ol ut i on of herpet i t i on, w e now decl i ne t o hearherm ot i on t o s t ay t he p eri od of v olunt arydep arture for l ack o f j uri sdi ct i on . F or the reasons below , w e al so aff i r m t he B I A ’ s deci s i on t o denyhercl ai m s foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and re lie f u n d e r t h e C A T . II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’s d e c is io n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . Be c a u s e t h e BI A a f

f i r me d wi t h o u to p i n i o n , we r e v i e w t h e I J ’ s o p i n i o n u n d e rt h e s a me s t andar ds of r evi ew as w e w oul d a dec i s i on of the B I A . A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 549 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . A gr antordeni al of as y l um i s r evi ew abl e forabus e of d iscreti o n . R ey n o so -L o p ez v . A sh cro ft, 3 6 9 F . 3 d 2 7 5 , 2 7 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e IJ’s fac tual det erm i nat i ons s houl d notbe overtur ned unl es s a r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d be c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e o th e rw is e . A b d ille v . A s h c ro f t, 2 4 2 F .3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T h e B IA ’s de cisi o n to af firm the d ec isi o n o f th e IJ w ith o u t op inion is subject t o arb itrary and ca pr i ci ous r evi ew . Sm r i ko v. A s hcr oft , 387 F. 3d 279, 296 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew t he ques t i on of w hetherw e have j ur i s di ct i on t o hearH adi ’ s m ot i on t o s t ayt he per i od of vol unt arydepartur e de novo , as i ti s i ni t i al l ya ques t i on of s t atut or ycons t ruct i on. U ni t ed S ta te s v . T o rr e s , 3 8 3 F .3 d 9 2 , 9 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).5 II I. T he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ngs w er e bas ed on s ubs t ant i al evi dence on t he re c o rd , a n d n o t m e re ly o n c o n je c tu re a n d s p e c u la tio n , a n d s h o u ld th e re f o re b e u p h e ld . G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he C our tnot es t hatH adi admi t t ed l y i ng t o t he as y l um offi ceratheras y l um i nt ervi ew , and thats he admi t t ed havi ng om i t t ed herempl oym enthi s t or yfr om heras y l um appl i cat i on beca us e s he knew i tvi ol at ed the term s o f h er v isa. T h e e v iden ce reli ed u p o n b ythe IJ in f ind ing so m e o f H ad i’ s sta tem e n ts in h e re n tlyin c re d ib le w o u ld n o t co m p e l a r e a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r to c o n c lu d e to t he contr ary . I n anycas e, t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons di d notaff ectt he ou t com e of the case, becau se he fo un d thateven i f credi t ed, her accou nt di d n ot es t abli sh p e rs e c u tio n s u f

f ic ie n t to q u a lif

yf o r r e lie f. T o qual i fyforas y l um , an al i en mustdemonst r at e thats he i s a “r efuge e, ” w hi ch m eans pr ovi ng s he i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r etur n t o hercountr yof nat i onal i t ybeca us e of a w e l l - f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y, m em b ersh ip in a p arti cu lar soc ial g rou p , o r po li ti ca l op inion . 8 U . S . C . § § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1 ); 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . A n appl i cantforas y l um m us tdemonst r at e a s ubj ect i vel ygenui ne fe arof p e rs e c u tio n s u p p o rt e d b yo b je c tiv e e v id e n c e th a t p e rs e c u tio n is a re a s o n a b le p o s s ib ility. I N S v. C ar doza- Fonse ca, 480 U . S. 421, 431 ( 1987) . A s how i ng of pas tper s ecut i on gi ves ri s e to a re b u tta b le p re s u m p tio n o f a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . 8 C .F .R . § 1208. 13( b) ( 1) . T he I J ’ s concl us i on t hatH adi di d nots uffe rfr om s t at e- s pons or ed6

per s ecut i on w i l l be uphel d beca us e ther e i s no evi dence of r ecor d t hatt he al l eged a ct s of a b u s e w e re p e rp e tr a te d b yg o v e rn m e n ta l e n titie s . Per s ecut i on m ayal s o cons i s tof conduc tbypr i vat e part i es , how ever , i f the governm enti s unw i l l i ng orunabl e t o contr ol i t . See, e. g. , A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 592 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ; G ao, 299 F. 3d at271. T he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatt he d isc rim in a tio n to w h ich H a d i w a s s u b jec t as a n e th n ica llyC h in e se p e rso n a n d a C a th o lic di d notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence and w i l l be u p h e ld . X ie v . A s h c ro f t, 3 5 9 F .3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T he I J found thatt he i nci dent s of har as s m entand vi ol ence t o w hi ch H adi had been s ubj ectcons t i tut ed or di narycr i m i nal behavi orfr om w hi ch no governm entcan ent i r el ypr ot ecti t s ci t i zens . T hatt he pol i ce di d notr es pond adequa t el yorexpec t ed br i bes i n or dert o pr ovi de pr ot ect i on al s o di d notes t abl i s h per s ecut i on beca us e corruptpol i ce offi cer s ar e a “ uni ver s al fac t , ” l i ke cr i m i nal behavi or . Per s ecut i on i s m or e than “unpl eas antnes s , har as s m ent , and . . . bas i c s uffe r i ng. ” N el s on v. I N S, 232 F. 3d 258, 263 ( 1s tC i r . 2000) . Per s ecut i on i ncl udes extr eme behavi ors uch as t hr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and s ever e ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons cons t i tut i ng a thr eatt o l i fe or fr eedom. L i n v. I N S, 238 F. 3d 239, 244 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . A l t hough H adi has been the vi ct i m of cr i m i nal conduct , s om e of i tpos s i bl yethni cal l yorr el i gi ous l ym ot i vat ed, i tdoes n o t ap p e a r o n th e b a sis o f h e r te stim o n yth a t h e r life o r f re e d o m h a v e b e e n se v e re ly t hr eat ened. See A bdi l l e, 242 F. 3d at493 ( hol di ng t hatSom al i w ho t es t i fi ed t o s uffe r i ng7

t w o vi ol entr obber i es w hi l e w or ki ng as a s t r eetvendor , al ong w i t h document aryevi dence aboutxenophobi c att i tudes i n Sout h A fr i ca, hi s countr yof r es i dence , had notes t abl i s hed p e r s e c u t i o n ) ; L i e v . A s h c r o f t , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 6 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( f i n d i n g t h a tr o b b e r i e s b y perpetr at or s ut t er i ng r aci al s l ur s agai ns tethni cal l yC hi nes e, C hr i s t i an I ndones i ans di d not rise to th e lev e l o f

p e rse c u tio n ). In a d d iti o n , h e r e n tire f a m ily , inc lu d in g h e r so n , rem a in behi nd i n I ndones i a. “The fac tt hatcl os e r el at i ves of an a s y l um appl i cantr emai n i n her nat i ve l and unharm ed i s r el evantt o, and oft en bel i es , t he s t r ength of an a s y l um cl ai m . ” L ie , 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 4 . T h e d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e su b m itt e d b yH a d i, w h ich c o n sis ts o f a S tate De p a r t me n tr e p o r tf

r o m 2 0 0 2 i n d i c a t i n g t h a tt h e I n d o n e s i a n g o v e r n me n th a s h a d s o me di ffi cul tycontr ol l i ng ethni c and r el i gi ous vi ol ence , does notchange t hi s concl us i on. See B ur eau of

D emocr acy , H um an R i ght s , & L abor , U . S. D ep’ tof St at e, I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom R epor t : I ndones i a ( 2002) . T hatH adi w oul d pr efe rt o l i ve i n t he U n ited S tate s a n d b e liev e s th a t sh e w o u ld b e tre a ted m o re f a irlyh e re is n o t su f

f icie n t to es t abl i s h a cl ai m of per s ecut i on. A ccor di ngl y , a r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d notbe compel l ed t o concl ude thatH adi es t abl i s hed a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on. A bdi l l e, 2 4 2 F .3 d a t 4 8 4 . T ur ni ng now t o H adi ’ s cl ai m forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval , w e not e thatt he s how i ng r equi r ed forw i t hhol di ng i s s i m i l art o, butm or e r i gor ous t han the s how i ng re q u ir e d f

o r a s y lu m . Z u b e d a v . A s h c ro f t, 3 3 3 F .3 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); 8 U .S .C . §8

1 2 3 1 (b)(3 )(A ); 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b)(1 ). If a p eti ti o n er is un ab le t o sati sfythe s tand ard foras y l um , he nec es s ar i l yfai l s t o m eett he s t andar d forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval . Shar dar v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 8 2 F . 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e Go v e r n me n tc o n t e n d s t h a tHa d i f a i l e d t o a p p e a l t h e I J ’ s d e n i a l o f h e rCA T cl ai m t o t he B I A , and thatw e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o hearherpet i t i on on t hati s s ue beca us e s he di d notexhaus theradmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es . M i ah v. A s hcr oft , 346 F. 3d 4 3 4 , 4 3 9 n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e B IA d id n o t discu ss this i n it s o rde r af firm ing the IJ’s deci s i on, and H adi ’ s br i ef t o t he B I A i s noti ncl uded i n t he r ecor d. T he G overnm entm ay be corr ectt hatw e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on. W e not e, how ever , t hateven i f w e do have j ur i s di ct i on, H adi has notes t abl i s hed ent i t l ementt o r el i ef unde rt he C A T , w hi ch r equi r es t he pet i t i onert o s how t hat“more l i kel yt han not ” s he w i l l be t or tur ed i f r etur ned t o her co u n try . B erisha

j v. A sh cro ft, 3 7 8 F . 3 d 3 1 4 , 3 3 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). Un l i k e a s y l u m, a CA T cl ai m l acks a s ubj ect i ve component , and i ns t ead r equi r es pet i t i onert o es t abl i s h by o b je c tiv e e v id e n c e th a t s h e is lik e ly to b e to rt u re d in th e f u tu re . Z u b e d a , 3 3 3 F .3 d a t 4 7 1 . I n t hi s cas e, H adi ’ s t es t i m onyand document aryevi dence do notes t abl i s h anyl i kel i hood o f to rt u re , a n d th e IJ d id n o t e rr in re je c tin g h e r C A T c la im . H ad i al so arg u es th at, in af firm ing the IJ’s d ec isi o n w ith o u t op inion , the B IA vi ol at ed i t s ow n pr ocedur es . A ccor di ng t o t he B I A ’ s r egul at i ons , aff i r m ance w i t hout o p in io n is a p p ro p ri a te w h e n th e B IA f in d s th a t e rr o rs “ w e re h a rm le s s o r n o n m a te ri a l,” t hatt he i s s ues “ar e s quar el ycontr ol l ed by. . . pr ece dentand do noti nvol ve the9

appl i cat i on of pr ece dentt o a novel fac tual s i tuat i on, ” and thatt he “i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al a re n o t s o s u b s ta n tia l th a t th e c a s e w a rr a n ts th e is s u a n c e o f a w ri tte n o p in io n .” 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 1( e) ( 4) ( i ) . H adi ar gues t hatt he l egal and fa ctual i s s ues r el at i ng t o herper s ecut i on cl ai m w er e s o s ubs t ant i al t hatt he B I A err ed i n noti s s ui ng a w r i t t en opi ni non. W e d is a g re e . T h e f

a c tu a l p a tte rn in th is c a s e is f a m ilia r t o th e c o u rt s a n d th e B IA . In L ie, f o r e x a m p le, th is C o u rt a f f irm e d th e B IA ’s r e v e rsa l o f a n IJ’ s g ra n t o f

a sy lu m to th re e In d o n e sia n s w h o se p e rso n a l sto rie s b e a r m a rk e d sim ilaritie s to H a d i’s. In b o th c a s e s , p e titio n e rs w e re s u b je c t to a lle g e d ly et h n ic a lly a n d re lig io u s ly m o tiv a te d ro b b e ri e s . See Li e, 396 F. 3d at532–533. J udge B ecke rnot ed i n t hatcas e the fr equenc yw i t h w hi ch t he C our tconfr ont s s i m i l arcl ai m s fr om ethni cal l yC hi nes e, C hr i s t i an I ndones i ans . I d. at 532. N orar e the l egal i s s ues compl ex oruni que. T he mai n i s s ue i s w hetherH adi has e sta b lish e d a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n . T h is is a n iss u e e x a m in e d b yth e B IA in everyas y l um cl ai m i thear s . T he I J and the B I A concurr ed, appl y i ng fami l i ars t atut es and p re c e d e n ts, th a t H a d i d id n o t m e e t h e r b u rd e n o f p ro o f o n h e r a sy lu m c laim , an d th is C our tagr ees . T he B I A di d notactarbi t r ar i l yand ca pr i ci ous l yi n aff i r m i ng w i t hout o p in io n in th is c a s e . Id . a t 4 8 4 . Fi nal l y , w e tur n t o t he ques t i on of w hethert hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on t o hear H a d i’s m o tio n to sta yth e o rd e r o f v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re re in sta ted b yth e B IA w h e n it aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on. H adi fi l ed herm ot i on t o s t ayon A ugus t13, 2004, befor e the

### Oth er co urts of app eal s h av e ag reedwith o urde te rmin at io n i n R eyno so -Lop ez. 1 

### Se e Bo co vav. G onz al es , 412 F . 3d 2 57, 266 –267 ( 1st Ci r. 200 5) ( hol din g th at

it did no t have j urisdictio n to reinstate or fashion a new order of voluntary de part ur e) ; Mull aiv. A shc ro ft , 285 F . 3d 6 35, ( 6thCi r. 200 4) ( hol din g th at it did not have pow er

to re ins tate e xpi re d orde r of volunt ar y depart ur e) ; N garuri h v. 10 3 0 -d a yp e ri o d g ra n te d b yth e B IA f o r v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re e x p ir e d . T h is C o u rtfirstco n side red the q u esti o n o f ju ri sd ict ion to stayo rde rs of v o lun tary departur e i n R eynos o- L opez v. A s hcr oft , 369 F. 3d 275 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . I n t hatcas e, t he C o u rtex am ined w h ethe r i t had juri sd ict ion to reinstate a n o rde r of v o lun taryd ep arture t hathad expi r ed bef

or e the al i en fi l ed hi s appea l and mot i on t o s t ay . T he pane l concl uded t hatt hi s C our tl acke d s uch j ur i s di ct i on. Fi r s t , t her e w as no expl i ci ts t atut or yauthor i t yfor exer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on overa mot i on t o s t ayan or derof vol unt arydepartur e, and “[ u] nder the p lai n lang u ag e o f th e IN A , as a m en d ed b ythe IIR IR A [Ill eg al Im m igrati o n R ef o rm an d Im m igran t R esp o n sibil ityA ct], the a u tho ri tyto reinstate o r ex tend v o lun tary d ep arture f

all s so lel yw ith in the d iscreti o n o f th e A tt o rne yG en era l . . . . ” Id . at 28 0 . In addi t i on, t he B I A had i nt erpr et ed the s t atut es t o ves ts ol e author i t yt o s etand ext end v o lun taryd ep arture p eriod s in the IN S ’s distr ictd ir ec tors. Id. at 28 1 . T h e B IA ’s i nt erpr et at i ons of i m m i gr at i on s t atut es ar e due de fer ence . I d. ( ci t i ng C hevr on U . S. A . , I nc. v. N atur al R es . D ef. C ounci l , 467 U . S. 837 ( 1984) ) . T hi s C our tfur t herconcl uded that p re ju d ice to th e a lien w a s m in im a l b e c a u se u n d e r th e IIR IR A , a c o u rt m a ym a in tain juri sd ict ion o v er a n ali en ’s ap p ea l eve n af ter th at ali en h as tak en ad v an tage o f v o lun tary departur e. 8 U . S. C . § 1252. 1

### A shc ro ft , 371 F . 3d 1 82, 192 –194 ( 4thCi r. 200 4) ( hol din g th at it did not have j urisd ic tio n to r ei nst at e or stay an orde r of

volunt ar y depart ur e) ; S virido v v. A shc ro ft , 358 F . 3d 7 22, 731 ( 10th C ir . 200 4) ( re fu sin g to stay an e xpi re d orde r of vo lunt ary de parture b utno t expl ic it ly ruli ng onth e juri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on ). The maj ority

of Circ uits th at have examined the issu e of j urisdictio n over 2 

### moti ons to s tay

une xpi re d orde rs of

volunt ar y depart ur e have f

ound that the y have j urisd ic tio n to gr ant su chastay . S eeBo co va , 412 F . 3d at 26 6–26 7 ( hol din g th at it had jurisdiction to stayan unexpired order of volunt ary departure pending judicial re vie wof ther emova l orde r) ; M ac ota j v. G onz al ez , 412 F . 3d 7 04, 706 –707 ( 6th Cir. 2005 ) (holding th at it has authority to stay an order of voluntary

departure a s an ci llary to a moti on t o st ay

r emova l) ; L ope z- Ch av ezv. A shc ro ft , 383 F . 3d 6 50, 653– 654 (7 th C ir . 200 4) ( hol din g th at it ha d auth ority

to stay une xpi re d pe ri od o f volunt ar y depart ur e) ; Rif e v. A shc ro ft , 374 F . 3d 6 06, 615 –616 ( 8thCi r. 200 4) (holdin g that court retains power to stay an order of voluntary

departure); El H im

ri v. A shc ro ft , 344 F . 3d 1 261, 126 2 ( 9thCi r. 200 3) ( hol din g th at c ourt r et ai ns equitable jurisdiction to st ay an unexpired order of volunt ary departure). But see N garuri h, 371 F . 3d at 19 2–19 4 ( 4thCi r. 200 4) ( hol din g th at it did not have j urisd ic tio n to r ei nst at e or stay an orde r of

volunt ar y depart ur e ev enwhe n moti on wa s filed within period for departure) . 11 T hi s cas e pr es ent s a s l i ght l ydi ffe r enti s s ue bec aus e H adi fi l ed herm ot i on t o s t ay t he or derof vol unt arydepartur e bef or e the per i od of vol unt arydepartur e gr ant ed byt he B I A had expi r ed. W e fi nd t hi s di ffe r ence l egal l yi ns i gni fi cant , how ever , and ext end our deci s i on i n R eynos o- L opez t o unexpi r ed or der s of vol unt arydepartur e. T he r eas oni ng of t hatdeci s i on appl i es equal l yher e. 2 Fi r s t , w e not e thatt he B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the I N A i s due def er ence under C hevr on, 467 U . S. at844 ( “W e have l ong r ecogni zed thatcons i der abl e w ei ghts houl d be a c c o rd e d to a n e x e c u tiv e d e p a rtm e n t’s c o n stru c tio n o f a sta tu to rysc h e m e it i s e n tru ste d to a d m in is te r . . . .” ). In th is c a se , the B IA n o tes in its o rd e r th a t itw o u ld p e rm it H a d i to12

“vol unt ar i l ydepart. . . w i t hi n 30 day s fr om t he dat e of thi s or deroranyext ens i on bey ond th a t ti m e a s m a yb e g ra n ted b yth e d istric t d ire c to r.” I n re H a d i, A 7 9 -3 2 3 -8 9 6 , B IA (Ju ly 14, 2004) ( or der ) . T he B I A ci t es 8 U . S. C . § 1229c( b) , w hi ch w as added byI I R I R A , and 8 C. F . R. § 1 2 4 0 . 2 6 ( c ) , ( f ) , wh i c h a r e r e g u l a t i o n s a d o p t e d a f t e rp a s s a g e o f

t h e I I RI RA . T h e re g u latio n s v e st a u th o rityto g ra n t o r e x ten d o rd e rs o f v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re e x c lu siv e ly in th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l an d h is d e leg e e s:

A u tho ri tyto ex tend the tim e w ith in w h ich to d ep art vol unt ar i l ys peci fi ed i ni t i al l ybyan i m m i gr at i on j udge ort he B oar d i s onl yw i t hi n t he j ur i s di ct i on of [s peci fi ed del egee s of the A tt o rne yG en era l] . A n im m igrati o n jud g e o r th e B o ard m ayr ei ns t at e vol unt arydepartur e i n a r emoval pr ocee di ng t hathas been r eopene d fora purpos e othert han s ol el ym aki ng an appl i cat i on forvol unt arydepartur e i f r eopeni ng w as gr ant ed pr i ort o t he expi r at i on of the or i gi nal per i od of vol unt arydepartur e. 8 C . F. R . § 1240. 26( f) . T he r egul at i ons fur t herl i m i tt he per i od of t i m e thateven the B I A m ayext end an or derof vol unt arydepartur e. See 8 C . F. R . 1240. 26( h) ( l i m i t i ng t ot al per i od of t i m e, even w hen r ei ns t at ed byt he B I A , t o a maxi m um of 120 day s ) . 8 U . S. C . 1229c( f) , al s o added byt he IIR IR A , d ives ts th is C o u rto f ju ri sd ict ion o v er a p p ea ls of d en ial s o f re q u ests fo r vo lun tary departur e. 8 U . S. C . § 1229c( f) . T hi s i s r ei nfor ced by8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , w hi ch stat es th at th e c o u rt s o f a p p ea ls do n o t hav e jurisdicti o n o v er d en ial s o f d iscreti o n ary r el i ef, i ncl udi ng deni al s of r eques t s forvol unt arydepartur e. A c o u rt’s s tay of

a p e rio d o f

v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re is a n e x ten sio n o f th e tim e to d e p a rt , w h e th e r o r n o t th a t o rd e r i s e x p ir e d . A s w e not ed i n R eynos o- L opez: “W hether13

the re li ef so u g h t . . . is ch ara cterized as a reinstatem en t and ex tens ion o f th e v o lun tary departur e per i od oras a t ol l i ng, t he ef fec ti s t he s ame. T he I N A i s cl eart hatt hi s t ype of r el i ef mayonl ybe s oughtfr om t he di s t r i ctdi r ect or . ” 369 F. 3d at283 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons an d cit ati o n s o m itted). E v en if t h e statuto rylang u ag e w ere n o t cl ea r, the B IA ’s in ter p re tatio n is “bas ed on a pe r m i s s i bl e cons t ruct i on of the s t atut e, ” and i s t her efor e due d e f e re n c e . C h e v ro n , 4 6 7 U .S . a t 8 4 4 . W e al s o not e thatt he al i en maym ai nt ai n her p e tit io n a f

ter d e p a rtu re , so sh e d o e s n o t sa c rif ice h e r rig h ts if

th is C o u rt late r g ra n ts w i t hhol di ng of r emoval ors om e otherfor m of r el i ef. 8 U . S. C . § 1252; acc or d R eynos oL o p e z , 3 6 9 F .3 d a t 2 8 1 . A cc o rdin g ly , the p lai n lang u ag e o f th e IN A an d the B IA ’s interpre tat ion o f th at st atute e stab li sh that this C o u rtd o es n o t hav e jurisdicti o n to h ea r a m ot i on t o s t ayan or derof vol unt arydepartur e as an adj unctt o a pet i t i on forr evi ew of an u n d e rl y in g o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. I V. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w, a n d we decl i ne t o deci de the mot i on t o s t ayt he or derof vol unt arydepartur e pendi ng r es ol ut i on of herappea l forl ack of ju ri s d ic tio n .