Interim Decision #2307 

MATTER OF ONYEDIRTA 

In Deportation Proceedings 

' A-19701496 

A-20607204 

DecidedIby Board July. 25)1974 

Respondents, who failed to depart within, the time initially granted to depart voluntarily, 

subsequently filed a motion to reopen seeking a new grant of voluntary departure. The 

Board of Immigration Appeals-has jurisdiction to grant the form of relief sought; 

however, in the absence of respondents' demonstration of any compelling reason •or 

circumstance for their failure to, depart within the period of time initially granted, the 

motion is denied. 

CHARGES: • ' 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(9) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(9))—Failed to maintain status 

(male respondent) 

JUL or 191)2- 9ection 241(a)(2) [8 1251(2)(2b—Noiimmigrant—remained 

longer than permitted (femal6 respondent) 

Lodged: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)J—Nonimmigrant—remained 

longer (male respondent) 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Martin Held, Esquire 

1725 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D. C. 20036 

The alien respondents, husband and wife, are natives of Nigeria. In 

decisions dated June 6, 1973, the respondents were found deportable by 

an immigration judge as nonimmigrants who had remained beyond the 

authorized length of their stays. They were accorded the privilege of 

voluntary departure; however, they failed to depart from the United 

States within the period of time authorized by the immigration judge. 

They subsequently filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, seeking 

forms of relief over which neither the Board nor the immigration judge 

has jurisdiction. The immigration judge denied that motion, and, in an 

order dated April 30, 1974, we dismissed the respondents' appeal from 

that denial. The respondents have submitted a second motion seeking 

reopening. The motion 141 be denied. 

The present motion requests reopening for the pnrpose of permitting 

the respondents to apply for a new grant of voluntary departure. The 

37 
Interim Decision #2307 

motion is accompanied by a partially completed brief whose preparation 

was evidently begun in connection with the respondents' earlier motion 

to reopen. The respondents have not directly attempted to justify or to 

explain their failure to take advantage of the immigration judge's initial 

grant of voluntary departure. 

The respondents are not seeking an extension of voluntary departure, 

a request which could not properly be entertained by an immigration 

judge. See Matter of Albano, 13 I. & N. Dee. 59 (BIA 1968); Matter of 

Wong, 13 I. & N. Dec. 258 (BIA 1969). Instead, they desire a new grant 

of voluntary departure. An immigration judge does possess the power 

to make such a grant, although the departure period must be set by a 

district director. Matter of Yeung, 13 I. & N. Dec. 528 (BIA 1970). 

Accordingly, we do have jurisdiction to grant the form of relief which 

the respondents presently seek. 

However, in order to warrant a new grant of voluntary departure, an 

alien must demonstrate the existence of compelling reasons or circumstances for his failure to depart within the time originally allotted. 

Were we to require less justification on the part of an alien, there would 

be little motivation for the alien to depart promptly and the result would 

be additional delay in the deportation process. Bee Fan Wan Keung v. 

INS, 434 F.2 d 301 (C.A. 2, 1970); Matter of Arao, 13 L & Dee. 156, at 

159 (BIA 19139). 

The respondents have not shown any compelling reasons or circumstances for their failure to depart within the period of time initially 

authorized by the immigration judge. They have failed to make out a 

prima facie case for reopening these proceedings. The motion will be 

denied. 

ORDER: The motion is denied. 

38