Opinion ID: 797821
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether Petitioners are entitled to nunc pro tunc relief

Text: 42 Petitioners would have us now adjudicate their request for a stay of voluntary departure nunc pro tunc. Nunc pro tunc, Latin for now for then, refers to a court's inherent power to enter an order having retroactive effect. Black's Law Dictionary 1100 (8th ed.2004). When a matter is adjudicated nunc pro tunc, it is as if it were done as of the time that it should have been done. Edwards v. INS, 393 F.3d 299, 308 (2d Cir.2004). It is a far-reaching equitable remedy applied in certain exceptional cases, Iavorski v. INS, 232 F.3d 124, 130 n. 4 (2d Cir.2000), typically aimed at rectify[ing] any injustice [to the parties] suffered by them on account of judicial delay. Weil v. Markowitz, 829 F.2d 166, 175 (D.C.Cir.1987). In the context of agency action, we have held that an award of nunc pro tunc relief [should] be available where agency error would otherwise result in an alien being deprived of the opportunity to seek a particular form of . . . relief. Edwards, 393 F.3d at 310-11. See also Ethyl Corp. v. Browner, 67 F.3d 941, 945 (D.C.Cir. 1995) (noting that nunc pro tunc relief has been applied to embrace agency action where necessary to put the victim of agency error in the economic position it would have occupied but for the error (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 43 While we are sympathetic to the position Petitioners find themselves in, this is simply not a case in which nunc pro tunc relief is warranted. As of November 25, 2002, Petitioners' immediate relative petitions were approved. Two days later, the BIA issued its decision in the underlying asylum case, affirming the IJ's order. The BIA, however, granted Petitioners an additional 30 days within which to depart. Petitioners then had several options. First, they could have filed a motion to reopen to adjust their status sooner. Indeed, the record discloses that Petitioners did not move to reopen until January 2003, well after their period for voluntary departure had expired. Second, they could have sought an extension of their period for voluntary departure from the INS District Director. Finally, they could have moved in this Court for a stay of voluntary departure. By exercising any of these options, Petitioners might have preserved their privilege to depart voluntarily. In other words, this is not a case in which error on the part of the court or the INS put Petitioners in a worse position. An order, nunc pro tunc, granting a stay of voluntary departure is therefore inappropriate. Cf. Edwards, 393 F.3d at 312 (granting nunc pro tunc relief to aliens who were erroneously denied the opportunity to apply for INA § 212(c) relief); Batanic v. INS, 12 F.3d 662, 667-68 (7th Cir.1993) (ordering BIA to allow petitioner to apply for asylum nunc pro tunc to remedy IJ's error in proceeding with hearing without petitioner's attorney present); see also Weil v. Markowitz, 898 F.2d 198, 201 (D.C.Cir.1990) (The paradigm case [for nunc pro tunc relief] involves a party who has died after his case has been submitted to the court, but before the court has entered judgment. Cases in which a party would otherwise be prejudiced by the clerk's delay in entering judgment stand upon the same footing. (citations omitted)). 44 Finally, we note one other factor that distinguishes Desta and Rife from this case. In each of those cases, our sister circuits were concerned that their prior case law had given petitioners reason to believe that they need not file a motion for a stay of voluntary departure. Desta, 365 F.3d at 749 (Based on the prior state of the law, [petitioner] (and his counsel) would have been justified in thinking that the period of voluntary departure would be automatically stayed, just as it had been prior to IIRIRA.); Rife, 374 F.3d at 616 ([O]ur past practice gave [petitioners] reason to believe that the stay of removal included a stay of their voluntary departure period as well.). This concern is notably absent here. 45 This Court has never held that aliens who file a petition for review are automatically entitled to a stay of voluntary departure. To the contrary, in Ballenilla-Gonzalez, we highlighted the fact that the petitioner there had not filed for a petition of review within the thirty days fixed by the period for voluntary departure nor had she requested a stay of the voluntary departure period pending appeal. 546 F.2d at 521. We noted that [t]hese procedures enable the [BIA] or this court, in cases where a prima facie meritorious basis for appeal is shown, to permit its being pursued without prejudice to voluntary departure. Id. Thus, in contrast to the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, both of which had expressly criticized then existing law, in Ballenilla-Gonzalez we expressed approval for procedures already in place prior to the passage of IIRIRA. For that reason, we are not concerned, as the courts were in Rife and Desta, that Petitioners here may have been misled that they did not have to file a motion specifically seeking a stay of voluntary departure. If anything, our decision in Ballenilla-Gonzalez should have put them and their counsel on notice that a motion seeking such relief was necessary. 46 Although we decide that the stay of deportation should not be read so as to encompass a stay of voluntary departure, Petitioners may not be without a remedy. Under pre-IIRIRA regulatory authority, the INS District Director (now the appropriate Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security) may grant a nunc pro tunc extension of voluntary departure. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.57 (Authority to reinstate or extend the time within which to depart voluntarily specified initially by an immigration judge or the Board is within the sole jurisdiction of the district director.); see also 6 Gordon, Mailman & Yale-Loehr, Immigration Law and Procedure § 74.02[4][f] (rev. ed. 2005) (Even after the expiration of the time for voluntary departure fixed by the immigration judge or the Board, a nunc pro tunc extension of the voluntary departure time may be granted by the district director if the [alien] presents a valid travel document and a confirmed reservation. In such cases the district director may cancel the warrant of deportation and may place in the [alien's] file an explanatory memorandum and a copy of the letter authorizing the extension of voluntary departure time.). 47 Petitioners are both in their mid-to-late 60's and have been in the United States for more than a decade, without event. Their only child is a United States citizen, and the immediate relative petitions she submitted on her parents' behalf have already been approved. Furthermore, it appears that any delay on Petitioners' part may be attributable to counsel's failure to recommend that they seek to extend their voluntary departure period before overstaying that period, an omission that thereby made them ineligible for adjustment of their status based on approved immediate relative petitions. In this case, the INS District Director might well consider exercising his or her discretion to grant an extension so that Petitioners may adjust their status to lawful permanent residents. The law does not, however, support this Court granting the relief sought in the pending petitions. 48 The petitions for review are DENIED.