P RE CE DE NT I AL

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. 09- 1572

SEEM AB AH EN G
. PATEL, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof t he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 073- 172- 524) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese2 A r gued J ul y12, 2010 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , J O R D A N a n d G R E E N A W A Y , J R .,

C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: A ugus t24, 2010)

R o b e rt F ra n k , E s q . [ ARGUE D] F ran k & Y o rk 60 Par k Pl ace Sui t e 1010 N ew ar k, N J 07102 C ouns el f orP et i t i oner Seem abahen G

. P at el K at e D eboerB al aban, E s q. E r i c H
. H ol der , J r . E s q. Susa n K
. H ous er , E s q. T hom as W
. H us s ey , E s q. J o h n J . W . In k e le s , E s q . [ ARGUE D] U
. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, C i vi l D i vi s i on P. O
. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 C ouns el f orR es pondent A t t or ney G ener alof

the U ni t ed Stat es3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. Seemabahen Pat el has fi l ed a pe ti ti on forr evi ew of t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B IA ”) f i nal or deraff

i r m i ng t he deni al of herappl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r em o v al

. She has al s o r eques t ed a s t ayof t he vol unt arydepartur e or der ed by t he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”)

. A t i s s ue i s w hether w e have j ur i s di ct i on overherpet i t i on forr eview , w hi ch cha l l enges an a d v e rse “ h a rd sh ip ” d e ter m in a tio n , an d w h e th e r , p u rsu a n t to 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 2 4 0
. 2 6 (i ), w e h av e the ab il ityto stayh er v o lun tary departur e once s he has fi l ed a pet i t i on forr evi ew . W e conc l ude t hatw e l ack the abi l i t yt o s t ay her vol unt ary departur e bec aus e, pur s uantt o t hatr egul at i on, hervol unt ary d epar tur e t er m i nat ed upon her fi l i ng of a pet i t i on for r evi ew . W e al s o concl ude that w e lac k juri sd ict ion to co n sid e r h e r ch all en g e to th e a g en cy ’s di s cr et i onar ydet er m i nat i on as t o hercl ai m of har ds hi p. Backg r ound Pat el , a cit izen of I ndi a, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l y i n 1992. O n A pr i l 29, 2006, Pat el w as i s s ued a N ot i ce t o A ppearand w as char ged w i t h bei ng s ubj ect t o r emoval

. Pat el4 conce ded r emovabi l i t y , butappl i ed forcanc el l at i on of r emoval pur s uantt o 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229b( b) , claimi ng t hatherr emoval w oul d caus e herhus band and he rs on, bot h U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens , “exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p. ” D ur i ng herh ea ri ng befor e the I J , Pat el pr es ent ed evi dence t hather 11- y earol d s on w as a s t r ong s tud entand w as engage d i n l ocal c o m m u n itya c tiv iti e s. S h e u rg e d th a t m o v in g h e r f a m ilyto In d ia w o u ld d e p riv e h e r so n o f e d u c a tio n a l o p p o rtu n iti e s th a t h e c o u ld onl yhave i n t he U ni t ed St at es . A ddi t i onal l y , Pat el cont ended t hatl i vi ng i n I ndi a w oul d be a ha r ds hi p t o her h u sb an d, w ho su f f e rs f ro m a th yro id c o n d iti o n , w h ich is m a n a g e d w ith d a ily m edi cat i on. A ft err evi ew i ng t he evi dence , t he I J concl uded that anyhar ds hi p cr eat ed by t he pros pect of P at el ’ s r emoval w as not “exc ept i onal orextr emel yunus ual

. ” A pp. 57, 62. In doi ng s o, t he I J not ed thatPat el ’ s s on w as a “good s tudent ” and a “br i ght boy , ” butt hathe w as nota “buddi n g g en ius” or“a pr odi gyof a n yso rt w h o is n o w g o in g to b e d e p riv e d o f a n o p p o rtu n it y to d e v e lo p [ h is] a b ili ties ” if re q u ire d to li v e w it h h is m o th e r in Ind ia. A p p . 9 -10
. C o n seq u en tl y , the IJ d en ied P atel’s app li cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval and gr ant ed her v o lun taryd ep arture. T h e IJ’ s d ec isi o n w as a ff irm ed b ythe B IA w i t houtopi ni on. T he B I A ’ s fi nal or der i ncl uded a w arni ng, as re q u ire d b y8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 0 .2 6 (i), tha t: i f, pr i ort o depart i ng t h e U n it ed St at es , t he re sp o n d e n t f

iled a n yju d icia l ch a llen g e to th is admi ni s t r at i vel yfi nal or der , s uch as a pet i t i on for re v iew p u rsu a n t to se c tio n 2 4 2 o f th e A c t,Pat el di d notr ai se h er claim t hatt he I J w as pr edi s pos ed 1 againsther on a pp eal t o t he B IA
. S he h as t hu s fai l ed to exh aust her r emedi es as t o t hi s cl ai m and w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew it. See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )(1 ) (re q u irin g th e e x h a u stio n o f a ll admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es avai l abl e t o an al i en bef or e a c our tm ay rev iew a f

inal o rde r of

rem o v al); B onhom etr e v. G onz al es , 414 F. 3d 442, 448 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng t hat w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overa pet i t i on for r evi ew bas ed on a cl ai m that coul d have be en, b u t wa s n o t , b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e BI A)

. Ad d i t i o n a l l y , e v e n i f we w er e t o cons i dert hi s cl ai m on the m er i t s w e w oul d notgr ant r el i ef be cause t he I J ’ s comm ent s dur i ng t he hea r i ng do not d e m o n stra te a p re d isp o sitio n a g a in st P a tel. 5 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 , the g ran t of v o lun taryd ep arture is a u to m a tica llyter m in a ted , an d th e a ltern a te o rd e r o f re m o v a l sh a ll i m m e d iate lytak e e f f e c t. A p p . 3
. O n a p p e a l, P a tel c h a llen g e s th e IJ’ s h a rd sh ip d e ter m in a tio n , co n ten d s th a t th e IJ w a s u n f a irlyp re d isp o se d to fin d ag ains t her, an d see k s a stayo f h er v o lu n taryd ep arture 1 p e ri o d

. D i s cus s i on I. E x c e p tio n a l a n d

E x tre m e ly U

n u su a l H a rd sh ip A n a lien w h o is re m o v a b le f ro m th e U n ited S tate s isT h e I J f o u n d t h a tP a t e l s a t i s f

i e d 8 U. S
. C. § § 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) 2 th ro u g h (C ), y e t f

a iled to e sta b lish “ e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e ly u n u s u a l h a rd s h ip ” u n d e r § (D ). 6 el i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval i f s he: (A ) h a s b e e n p h y s i c a l l yp r e s e n ti n t h e Uni t ed St at es fora co nt i nuous per i od of notl es s t han 10 y e a r s i mme d i a t e l yp r e c e d i n g t h e d a t e o f s u ch a p p lica tio n ; ( B) h as b een a per s on of good m or al char act er d u rin g su c h p e rio d ; (C ) has not been convi ct ed of an offen se under s ect i on 1182 ( a) ( 2) , 1 2 27 ( a) ( 2) , or 1227 ( a) ( 3) of t hi s t i t l e, s ubj ectt o par agr aph ( 5) ; and (D ) e sta b lish e s th a t re m o v a l w o u ld re su lt i n ex c e p tio n a l a n d

ex tre m e ly u n u su a l h a rd sh ip to the a lien ’s sp ou se, pa rent , or child, w ho is a c iti ze n o f th e U n itedS ta tes o r a n a lien la w fu lly adm i t t ed f

orper m anent

r es i dence

. 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). W e l ack j ur i s di ct i on to r evi ew di s cr et i onarydeci s i ons m ade pur s uant t o 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229b, i ncl udi ng “exc ept i onal and e x t r e me l yu n u s u a l ” h a r d s h i p d e t e r mi n a t i o n s . 8 U. S
. C.7 § 1 2 5 2 (a ) ( 2 )(B )(i); Me n d ez-Mo ra n c h e l v. A sh c ro ft , 338 F. 3d 176, 179 ( 3d C i r . 2003)

. O ur r evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o “cons t i tut i onal claim s o r qu esti o n s o f l aw . ” 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ); Fra n c o is v . G o n z a le s , 4 4 8 F .3 d 6 4 5 , 6 4 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). P atel co n ce d es th at w e c an n o t r e v ie w the IJ’s d iscretio n a ry d e term ination s, y et urg es th at t h e IJ’s m i s appl i cat i on o f t he har ds hi p s t andar d pr es ent s a ques t i on of l aw . Pat el cont ends t hatt he IJ fai l ed t o cons i deral l of t he co ns equenc es of m ovi ng her fami l y t o I ndi a and t hat t he IJ “underval ued t he s ever it y o f har ds hi p w hen cons i der i ng t he extr aor di naryaca demi c ac hi evementof [Pat el ’ s ] s on and the emot i onal and fi nanci al i m pacton hi m and [Pat el ’s] hus band” o f m o v in g to In d ia . P e t’ r B r. 5 -6
. C h a ll e n g e s to “ e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e lyu n u su a l” har ds h i p d e t e rmi nat i ons cons t i tut e “qua r r el s overt he exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on and t he corr ectnes s of fa ctual fi ndi ngs ” and d o not ra is e c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s o r q u e s tio n s o f la w . C o sp ito v. A tt ’y G en. , 5 3 9 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), qu ot i ng C am ar a v. D e p ’t o f Ho m e la n d

S e c ., 4 9 7 F
. 3 d 1 2 1 , 1 2 4 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 7 )

. We d o n o t hav e jurisdicti o n to rev iew the IJ’s d iscreti o n ary d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e h a rd sh ip to P a tel’s so n a n d h u sb a n d d id n o t sa tisf

yth e “ e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e lyu n u su a l” re q u ir e m e n ts o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b ) ( 1 ) ( D )

. I d. a t1 7 9
. We re c e n tlyc lar if

ied th a t, w h ile w e d o n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n to
“ re h a sh ” th e IJ’ s d e te r m in a tio n o f w h e th e r a n a lien m e e ts th is h ard sh ip req u ir em en t, w e d o h av e jurisdicti o n to rev iew w h ether8 t he I J us ed t he corr ect l egal s t andar d t o r eac h t hi s det er m i nat i on. P ar ej a v. A t t ’

y G en. , _ F. 3d _ , N o. 08- 4598, 2010 W L 2947239 at*4 ( 3d C ir

. Ju l y29, 2010)

. A l t hough Pat el cl ai m s t o be c h a llen g in g th e IJ’ s m isa p p lica tio n o f a leg a l sta n d a rd , sh e is actual l yas s er t i ng t hats he met herbur den of s how i ng an e x c e p tio n a l h a rd sh ip . W e d o n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew th is cl ai m beca us e i tchal l enges a di s cr et i onarydet er m i n at i on and d o e s n o tp r e s e n ta c o n s t i tu t i o n a l q u e s t i o n o r a q u e s t i o n o f l a w. I d. ; see al so Me n d ez-Mo ra n c h e l, 3 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 7 9 ; Su kw an pu t ra v . G o n z a le s , 4 3 4 F
. 3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). II
. Stay of

V olunt ary D epa rt ure O u r a b ili tyto g ra n t a s tay of v o lu n ta ryd e p a rtu re is l i m i t ed bya r ece ntr egul at i on, 8 C
. F. R
. § 1240. 26( i ) , that t ook e f f e c t o n Ja n u a ry2 0 , 2 0 0 9 a n d sta tes , in re lev a n t p a rt: (i ) E f f e c t o f f ilin g a p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . I

f , pr i or t o d epa rt i ng the U

nit ed S t ates , th e a l i en fi l es a pet i t i on f orr evi ew purs uant t o s ect i on 242 of the A ct ( 8 U

. S. C

. 1252) orany otherj udi ci al chal l enge t o the adm i nis t r at i vel y f i nalor der, any g ra n t o f vo lu n ta ry d e

p a rtu r e sh a ll t e rm in a te aut om at i cal l

y upon the f

i l i ng of the pet i t i on or otherj udi ci al chal l enge and the al t er nat e or derof re m o v a l e n ter e d p u rs u a n t to p a ra g ra p h (d) o f th is s ect i on s hal li m m edi at el y take e f f ect , e x c e p tt hat an ali en g ran ted th e p ri v ileg e o f v o lun tary departur e under8 C
. F. R
. 1 240. 26( c) w i l l notbeA l so, subsect i on (f) of 8 C

. F
. R
. § 124 0. 26 deals w ith 3 ext endi ng t he t i m e t o departand s t at es t hat“t he fi l i ng of a pet i t i on forr evi ew has t he ef fec tof aut om ati cal l yt er m i nat i ng t he gr antof vol unt arydepartur e, and ac cor di ngl y al s o does not to ll, s ta y , o r e x te n d th e p e ri o d a llo w e d f o r v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re .” 9 deemed t o have d ep ar t ed underan or derof r emoval i f t he al i en depa r t s t he U ni t ed S t at es no l at ert han 30 day s fol l ow i ng t he fi l i ng of a pe t i t i on f o r re v iew , p ro v id e s to D H S su c h e v id e n c e o f h is orherdepartur e as t he I C E Fi el d O ffi ce D i r ect or ma yr e q u i r e , a n d p r o v i d e s e v i d e n c e DHS d e e ms s uffi ci entt hathe o r she r emai ns out s i de of the U ni t ed St at es . T he B oar d s hal l advi s e the al i en of t h e c o ndi t i on pr ovi ded i n t hi s par agr aph i n w r i t i ng i f i tr ei ns t at es t he i m m i gr at i on j u d g e’s gr antof vol unt arydepartur e. . . . Si nce the gr antof vol unt ary departur e i s t er m i nat ed byt he fi l i ng of th e p e tit io n f

o r re v iew , the a lien w ill b e su b jec t to t he al t ern ate or derof r emoval , butt he pena l t i es forfai l ur e t o departvol unt ar i l yun ders ect i on 240B ( d) of t he A cts hal l notappl yt o an al i en w ho fi l es a pet i t i on for r evi ew , and w ho r emai ns i n t he U n ited S tat e s w h ile th e p e tit io n f o r re v iew is p e n d in g .

3 (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l h a s th e a u th o r ityto p rom u lgate re g u lat ion s tha t l im itelig ibil ityfo r vo lun tary departur e. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229c( e)

. O urr evi ew of s uch r egul at i ons10 i s , a g a i n , l i mi t e d t o c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms o rq u e s t i o n s o f l a w. I d. ; 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D )

. U ndert he pl ai n lang uage of 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 2 4 0
. 2 6 (i ), w e c an n o t st aya g ran t of v o lun tary departur e aft era pet i t i oners eeks j udi ci al r evi ew beca us e the gr anthas al r eadyt er m i nat ed. Pat el conce des t hatt hi s r egul at i on i s unambi g u o u s, y et ci t es O bal e v. A t t or ney G ener al , i n w hi ch w e hel d t hatw e had j ur i s di ct i on t o gr ant a st ay of vol unt ary departur e. 453 F. 3d 151 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). H o w e v e r, O b a le pr edat ed t he eff ect i ve dat e of 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 2 4 0. 26 and ourhol di ng w as bas ed on the fa ctt hat th e re w a s “ n o in d ica tio n th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d to e lim in a te th is co u rt ’s eq u it ab le j u ri sd ict ion to g ran t a st ayo f th e v o lun tary departur e per i od. ” I

d. at157. T he re gul at i on now contr ol s , and r equi r es a contr ar yfi ndi ng. Pat el nextchal l enges t he pr opr i etyof t he r egul at i on, expl ai ni ng t hat an al i en’ s s t atut or yr i ghtt o s eek j udi ci al r evi ew “s houl d notpr event[her ] fr om av ail i ng [her s el f] of form s of r e l i e f t o wh i c h [ s h e ] wo u l d o t h e r wi s e b e e n t i t l e d

. ” P e t ’ rM e m. i n Suppor tof J ur i s di ct i on t o St ay , 4. A s t he Supr eme Courthas expl ai ned, how ever , a vo l u n t a rydepartur e arr angementbetw een an al i en and the governm enti s a qui d pr o quo . See D ada v. Mukas ey , 1 2 8 S .C t. 2 3 0 7 , 2 3 1 9 (2 0 0 8 ) (“ V o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re is an agr eed- upon excha nge of be nefi ts , m uch l i ke a s et t l ement agr eement
. I n r etur n forant i ci pat ed b en efi t s , i ncl udi ng t he p o ssibil ityo f re ad m issi o n , an ali en w h o req u ests v o lun tary departur e r epr es ent s t hathe ors he has t he means t o departt heAt t h e t i me o f t he D ada d ec isi o n , v o lun taryd ep arture 4 aut om at i cal l yw i t hdr ew an al ien’s m ot i on t o r eopen, buti f an a lien o v e r s ta y e d h e r d e p a rtu re d a te, s h e w o u ld b e su b jec t to penal t i es . T here for e, an al i en w as for ced t o choos e betw een depart i ng and for egoi ng herm ot i on t o r eopen, ors t ay i ng i n t he U n ited S tate s a n d in c u rrin g p e n a lti e s f o r f a ili n g to tim e lyd e p a rt. T he Supr eme C our tf

o u nd t hi s confl i ct“unt enabl e” a nd r es ol ved (c o n tin u e d ...) 11 U ni t ed St at es and i nt ends t o do s o pr om p tl y . ”) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ); se e a lso R e y n o so -L o p ez v . A sh c ro

ft , 36 9 F
. 3d 27 5, 28 3 ( 3d C i r. 20 04 ) (expl ai ning that the “p urpose o f a u th o riz in g v o lu n tar yd e p a r tu re in lieu o f d e p o rta tio n is to eff ect t he al i en’ s pr om pt departur e w i t houtfur t hert r oubl e t o t he [ g o v e rn m e n t]. B o th th e a lien s a n d th e [ g o v e rn m e n t] b e n e f it there b y . ”) ( q u o ting Zazueta- C a rr ill o v . A sh c ro ft , 322 F. 3d 1166, 1 1 7 3 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ))

. W e c o n c lu d e th a t, g iv e n th e m u tu a l b e n e f it en v isio n e d in th e g r a n t o f

v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re , the re is n o th in g w ro n g w ith co n d it ion ing the righ t t o v o lun tari lyd ep art on the a li en ’s rel i nq uis hing t he ri gh tt o en gag e i n ap peal pr oce e d i ng s. In D a da , t he C our t not ed t he choi ces avai l abl e t o t he al i en, s t at i ng t hat a n a l i e n “ h a s t h e o p t i o n e i t h e r t o a b i d e b y t h e t e r ms , and rec eive the a g ree d -up o n b en ef it s, o f v o lun taryd ep arture; o r, al t er nat i vel y , t o for go t h o s e bene fi t s and r emai n i n t he U ni t ed S tate s to p u rsu e a n a d m in istra tiv e m o tio n .” 1 2 8 S .C t. at2319- 20. D ada a n t i c i p a t e d t h e e n a c t me n to f 8 C. F. R. § 1240. 26 , 4 5(

. . . cont i nued) 4 it b y al l ow i ng an al i en an opportuni t yt o w i t hdr aw herm ot i on forvo lun tary departur e bef or e the t i m e forhert o departhad e x p ir e d

. D ada , 128 S. C t
. at2311. “ [T ] h e DOJ h a s p r o p o s e d a n a me n d me n tt o 8 C. F
. R. 5 § 1 2 4 0 .2 6 th a t, p ro sp e c tiv e ly , w o u ld ‘p ro v id e f o r th e a u to m a tic ter m in a ti o n o f

a g ra n t o f

v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re u p o n th e tim e ly fi l i ng of a mot i on t o r eopen orr econs i der , as l ong as t he mot i on is f il ed p ri o r t o the e x p ir ati o n o f th e v o lun taryd ep arture per i od. ’ ” D ada , 128 S. C t
. at2318. Secti o n 1240. 26 t hus el i m i nat es one of the D ada C ou rt ’s pri m arycon cerns, i.e

. t hatan a lien w ho fai l s t o t i m el y dep art i n order t o pursue a m otio n to re o p e n w o u ld b e s u bje c t to p e n a lti e s. B ya u to m a tica lly t e r mi n a t i n g a g r a n to f

v o l u n t a r yd e p a r tu r e u p o n t h e f i l i n g o f a m ot i on t o r eopen or a pet i t i on for r evi ew , t he r egul at i on ati s s ue pr ot ect s an al i en fr om penal t i es forfai l ur e t o departw i t hi n t he a llo tte d tim e p e ri o d

. T he ri ght t o fi l e a pet i t i on forr evi ew and the r i ghtt o fi l e a 6 m ot i on t o r eopen a r e bot h pr ovi ded bys t atut e. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252; (c o n tin u e d ...) 12 r ecogni zi ng t hatt he aut om at i c t er m i nat i on of an a l i en’ s gr antof vol unt arydepartur e u p o n the fi l i ng of a mot i on t o r eopen w as per m i s s i bl e. Th e r e f

or e, i tfol l ow s t hatt he aut om at i c t er m i nat i on of an a l i en’ s gr antof vol u nt arydepartur e upon the fi l i ng of a p eti tio n fo r rev iew , an d co n d it ion ing the g ran t of v o lun tary d e p a rtu re u p o n th e a lien ’s f o re g o in g th a t rig h t, i s s im ilarly unobj ect i onabl e. 6(

. . . cont i nued) 6 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (c )( 7 ). W e p re v io u slyn o ted , in d icta , th a t 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 0 .2 6 (i) cl ari fi es: t h a tt h e f

i l i n g o f a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i ew a u t o m a t i c a l l y t e r m i nat es the g ran t of v o lun tary departur e. T he new r egul at i on t hus r ei nfor ces t he natur e of vol unt ary departur e as a n ‘ agr eed- upon excha nge of benef

i t s , ’ and s t r es s es t he choi ce an ali en m u st m ak e b etw ee n the b en ef it s o f v o l u n tary d e p a rtu re , w ith its c o n c o m itan t o b lig a tio n to departpr om pt l y , on one h an d, orpur s ui ng l i t i gat i on w i t hout agr eei ng t o departpr om pt l y , on the o ther. Sandi e v. A t t ’

y G en. , 5 6 2 F .3 d 2 4 6 , 2 5 2 n . 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ).

“ [ A ]n ali en g ran ted th e p ri v il eg e o f v o lun taryd ep arture 7 under8 C
. F. R
. 1240. 26( c) w i l l notbe dee m ed t o have de par t ed underan or derof r emoval i f t he al i en depa r t s t he U ni t ed St at es no l at ert han 30 day s fol l ow i ng the fil ing of a pet i t i on for rev iew , p rov ides to D H S su ch ev iden ce o f his o r he r de p arture (c o n tin u e d ...) 13 Fur t her m or e, under 8 C
. F. R
. § 1240. 26( i ) , an al i en does notnece s s ar i l yl os e her r i ght t o fi l e a pe t i t i on forr evi ew . I f s he vol unt ar i l y depart s w i t hi n 30 day s of fi l i ng a pet i t i on forr evi ew and pr ovi des evi dence t hats he r emai ns out s i de o f the U ni t ed St at es , s he w i l l not be deem ed t o have depar t ed underan or der o f r e mo v a l , a n d c a n t h u s p u r s u e h e rp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 7(

. . . cont i nued) 7 as the I C E Fi el d O ffi ce D i r ect orm ayr equi r e, and pr ovi des evi dence D H S deems s uffi ci entt hathe or s he r emai ns out s i de o f th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 0 .2 6 (i ). 14 F o r t h e f

o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l D IS M IS S P atel’s pet i t i on forr evi ew for lack of j ur i s di ct i on, and D E N Y her mo t i o n f o ra s t a y of vo l u n t a r yd e p a r tu r e i n l i g h to f 8 C. F
. R. § 1 2 4 0 .2 6 (i ).