Opinion ID: 202065
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Various Forms of Relief

Text: 64 Finally, the Estradas say that they did not voluntarily waive their right to apply for non-ABC asylum, and they seek leave to apply for this relief now. They say there is a difference between a defensive asylum claim raised before an IJ and an ABC asylum claim, and that if had they filed claims for defensive asylum before the IJ, they would have certainly acquiesced in the IJ's ruling on administrative closure and would have been waiving their ABC claim. We see no basis for the argument. 65 Whether or not defensive asylum is different from ABC asylum, the INS had determined that Estrada was ineligible for benefits under the ABC Agreement, and the IJ had decided that administrative closure was improper, in deference to the INS' determination. The Estradas were required to seek from the IJ whatever relief they hoped to get. Indeed, they did seek suspension of deportation and waivers of inadmissibility. Those forms of relief are clearly different from what the Estradas call ABC asylum, and it is not clear how seeking defensive asylum, which the Estradas say is also different, would have been any more of a waiver of their rights under the ABC Agreement. As the Estradas concede, they were provided numerous opportunities to continue to apply for asylum after they indicated at the commencement of their exclusion proceedings that they would be seeking such relief, and they refused to do so. 13 It was not error for the BIA to deem the applications for asylum abandoned. 14