Interim Decision #2992 

MATTER OF BAROCIO 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-23060078 

A-23060080 

Decided by Board August 8, 1985 

(1) An alien who has violated a lawful order of deportation by failing to report to 

the Immigration and Naturalization Service following notification that his deportation has been scheduled does not merit the favorable exercise of discretion required for reopening of deportation proceedings. 

(2) Notice of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals stint to an alien's attorney of record constitutes notice to the alien. 

(3) The unsupported claim that the respondents' failure to depart voluntarily was 

due to their unawareness of the Board's decision does not demonstrate a compelling reason to warrant reinstatement of voluntary departure where the record reflects that notice of the decision was sent to counsel. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(aX2) [8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)}—Entered without inspection (both respondents) 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Daniel E. Chavez, Esquire Leonard A. Rosenberg 

615 Sansome Street Assistant District Counsel 

San Francisco, California 94111 

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Dunne. Morris, and Vacca, Board Members 

In a decision dated June 28, 1983, the immigration judge found 

the respondents deportable, denied their applications for suspension of deportation, and granted them the privilege of voluntary departure in lieu of deportation. On August 28, 1984, the respondents' 

appeal from that decision was dismissed by the Board which granted them a 30-day extension of their voluntary departure period. 

The respondents failed to depart voluntarily within that time. No 

petition for review of the TinArd's order was filed. Notice to report 

for deportation was sent to the respondents on March 1, 1985, but 

they failed to appear on April 1, 1985, as required. Their requests 

for a stay of deportation were denied by the district director on 

255 
Interim Decision #2992 

March 27, 1985, and by the Board on April 1, 1985. On March 29, 

1985, the respondents filed a motion to reopen their deportation 

proceedings in order to request reinstatement of voluntary departure. The Immigration and Naturalization Service opposes the 

motion. The motion to reopen will be denied. 

The respondents, husband and wife, are natives and citizens of 

Mexico. The record reflects that they last entered the United 

States without inspection, the female respondent on January 15, 

1976, and the male respondent on May 9, 1981. The respondents 

have three United States citizen children. 

In requesting reinstatement of voluntary departure, the respondents note that the male respondent has a nonpreference priority 

date of December 8, 1976, and that his brother has applied for naturalization. They claim that they are now willing to return to 

Mexico to wait for a visa based on their anticipated fifth-preference 

classification. The respondents therefore contend that voluntary departure should be reinstated for humanitarian reasons. They further allege that they were unaware of the 30-day voluntary departure period granted to them by the Board and that they believed a 

petition for review would be filed by their attorney. 

The Service bases its opposition to the motion on the fact that 

the respondents are presently in abscondee status, having failed to 

report for deportation on April 1, 1985. In support of its position, 

the Service has submitted return receipts signed by both the male 

respondent and the office of his prior attorney which verify that 

they received the notice to report. In addition, evidence has been 

presented establishing the Service's unsuccessful efforts to locate 

the respondents for deportation through investigations at their last 

known address, the male respondent's last known place of employment, the postal service, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, and the local gas and telephone companies. The Service contends that the respondents do not merit discretionary relief because they are fugitives who have unlawfully evaded deportation. 

It is further argued that the respondents have not shown any compelling reasons for their failure to depart within the time originally granted for voluntary departure as required for reinstatement of 

that privilege. 

The decision whether to grant a motion to reopen deportation 

proceedings is a matter within the discretion of this Board. See INS 

v. Rios-Pineda, 471 'U.S. 444 (1985); INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183 

(1984); INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139 (1981). When the Board determines that reopening is not warranted in the exercise of discretion, 

the question of statutory eligibility for the requested relief need 

not be considered. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976); LeB256 
Interim Decision #2992 

lane v. INS, 715 F.2d 685 (1st Cir. 1983); Agustin v. INS, 700 F.2d 

564 (9th Cir. 1983); Hibbert v. INS, 554 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1977). Furthermore, even if prima facie eligibility has been established, the 

Board may deny a motion to reopen for purely discretionary reasons where the record reflects that significant grounds exist for denying reopening based on the respondent's actions. See INS v. RiosPineda, supra; Ahwazi v. INS, 751 F.2d 1120 (9th Cir. 1985); Balani 

v. INS, 669 F.2d 1157 (6th Cir. 1982); Matter of Reyes, 18 I&N Dec. 

249 (BIA 1982); Matter of Rodriguez-Vera, 17 I&N Dec. 105 (BIA 

1979). 

The respondents in this case were ordered to report for deportation, having failed to depart voluntarily pursuant to the privilege 

previously accorded them. Although they now seek reinstatement 

of that privilege, they have also refused to report for deportation 

pursuant to the notice which was sent to them by the Service. Such 

deliberate flouting of the immigration laws has been considered a 

very serious adverse factor which warrants the denial of a motion 

to reopen deportation proceedings as a matter of discretion. See 

Mortazczui v. INS, 719 F.2d 86 (4th Cir. 1983); Pang Kiu Fung v. 

INS, 662 F.2d 417 (2d Cir. 1981); see also INS v. Rios-Pineda, supra. 

It ha.s long been recognized that the incentives for an alien to 

voluntarily depart from the United States or to submit to a deportation order are abated by the availability of procedures which provide a seemingly endless opportunity to seek relief from deportation. See INS v. Rios-Pineda, supra; Riasati v. INS, 738 F.2d 1115 

(10th Cir. 1984); Fan Wan Keung v. INS, 434 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1970); 

Matter of Yeung, 13 I&N Dec. 528 (BIA 1970). The prevalent misuse 

of the procedures for reopening by many aliens and the resultant 

delays in their deportation have been the subject of much comment 

by the courts. See Reid v. INS, 766 F.2d 113 (3d Cir. 1985); Dallo v. 

INS, 765 F2d 581 (6th Cir. 1985); Bonilla v. INS, 711 F.2d 43 (5th 

Cir. 1983); Muigai v. INS, 682 F.2d 334 (2d Cir. 1982); Der-Rong 

Chour v. INS, 578 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1978); Acevedo v. INS, 538 F.2d 

918 (2c1 Cir. 1976). This problem was recently acknowledged in INS 

v. Wang, supra, where the Supreme Court noted the necessity of according to the Board wide discretion to determine what circumstances warrant reopening of proceedings. Quoting from a dissent 

by Judge Wallace of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit, the Court observed as follows: 

If INS discretion is to mean anything, it must be that the INS has some latitude 

m deciding when to reupwx a case. The INS Should have the right to he restrictive. Granting such motions too freely will permit endless delay of deportation by 

aliens creative and fertile enough to continuously produce new and material facts 

sufficient to establish a prima fade case. It will also waste the time and efforts of 

257 
Interim Decision #2992 

immigration judges called upon to preside at hearings automatically required by 

the prima fade allegations. 

INS v. Wang, supra, at 143 n.5 (quoting Villena v. INS, 622 F.2d 

1352, 1362 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc) (Wallace, J., dissenting). This 

Board is cognizant of the opportunities for abuse of the motion 

process and of the fact that further violation of the immigration 

laws, by other aliens is only encouraged when those who disregard 

an order to report for deportation are subsequently afforded the 

privilege of reopening proceedings to seek discretionary relief. See 

generally Matter of Yeung, supra; Matter of D-F-, 4 I&N Dec. 589 

(MA, A.G. 1952). We therefore conclude that an alien who has violated a lawful order of deportation by failing to report to the Service following notification that his deportation has been scheduled 

does not merit the favorable exercise of discretion required for reopening of deportation proceedings. 1 

Inasmuch as the respondents have chosen to disregard the order 

of deportation against them by refusing to report on their appointed date of departure, their motion to reopen will be denied as a 

matter of discretion. The respondents have indicated by their actions that they are willing to make an appearance only if their 

motion is granted and they obtain the relief they seek. Under these 

circumstances, we decline to reward their disdain for the law by 

exercising our discretion to reopen proceedings. We make this determination after having considered the substantial equities that 

are present in this case. 

Although we need not address the issue of the respondents' eligibility for reinstatement of voluntary departure, we note our concurrence with the Service's position that a prima facie showing of 

such eligibility has not been established. In order to warrant a new 

In Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365 (1970), the Supreme Court declined to 

review the appeal of a convicted defendant who had failed to surrender himself to 

state authorities following his conviction. The Court held that the defendant's actions disentitled him to call upon the resources of the Court for a determination of 

his claims. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit followed this 

reasoning in refusing to entertain an appeal from an alien who had failed to report 

to immigration authorities for deportation. Arena v. United States INS, 673 F.2d 75 

(3d Cir. 1982). The court noted in that case that there was nothing in the record to 

indicate that the alien would make himself available for deportation if his claims on 

appeal were rejected. Id. at 77. Other courts have also refused in their discretion to 

hear appeals taken as a matter of right where the litigant had indicated that he 

was willing to abide by the court's decree only if it was favorable. United States v. 

Swigart, 490 F.2d 914 (10th Cir. 1973); Johnson v. Laird, 432 F.2d 77 (9th Cir. 1970). 

Since the derision whether to grant a motion to reopen deportation proceedings is a 

discretionary one, we find that it is even more appropriate for the Board to deny 

reopening to aliens who flout the immigration laws by failing to appear when ordered to report for deportation. 

258 
Interim Decision #2992 

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. Ahwazi v. INS, supra; 

Riasati v. INS, supra; Matter of Onyedibia, 15 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 

1974); see also Matter of M-, 4 I&N Dec. 626 (BIA 1952). The respondents have not shown that any such reasons or circumstances 

exist. No affidavits have been submitted to support their allegations that they were unaware of the Board's order extending the 

immigration judge's grant of voluntary departure for 30 days. Furthermore, their claimed belief that a petition for review would be 

filed is inconsistent with their purported ignorance of the Board's 

decision. In any case, the record reflects that our decision was 

mailed to the respondents' attorney of record who was authorized 

to represent them at that time. See 8 C.F.R. § 292.4(a) (1984). Such 

notice to their attorney constitutes notice of the decision to the respondents. See 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(a) (1985). We therefore find no merit 

to their contentions in this regard. 

Accordingly, the respondents' motion to reopen will be denied. 

ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 

259