Opinion ID: 2976761
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: May 16, 2007, Decision of the Board

Text: -4- No. 07-3770 Xhuti v. Mukasey The Board decision properly before us for review is the May 16, 2007, decision on the second motion for reconsideration and to reopen. We review the Board’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Denko v. INS, 351 F.3d 717, 723 (6th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). “An abuse of discretion can be shown when the IJ or Board offers no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, or rests on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.” Denko, 351 F.3d at 723 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Ashki v. INS, 233 F.3d 913, 917 (6th Cir. 2000).
To be eligible for voluntary departure, a petitioner must be physically in the United States for at least one year before being served with a notice to appear. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(1)(A). The DHS contends that this period must be uninterrupted—any voluntary departure from the United States would start the clock over at the time of reentry. Mr. Xhuti argues to the contrary—a temporary departure only pauses the clock while the alien is outside of the country. The Board did not address the merits of this argument, however, because it concluded in its December 29, 2006, decision that the couple had waived the argument by not challenging the IJ’s finding that the clock began ticking on July 24, 2001. They sought reconsideration of that decision, and the Board denied their second motion as untimely and on the merits. We need not address the issue of timeliness. The purpose of a motion to reconsider is the correction of legal or factual errors that occurred in the Board’s original decision. 8 U.S.C. § -5- No. 07-3770 Xhuti v. Mukasey 1229a(c)(6)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Therefore, a motion to reconsider “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). It is undisputed that the Xhutis did not object to the IJ’s initial ruling or final ruling that they did not meet the one-year requirement. Mr. Xhuti instead points to a line of questioning during the merits hearing when the couple’s attorney attempted to show that they in fact were in the country more than a year before being served with the notice to appear. Mrs. Xhuti was testifying about a trip she made with her husband to Albania in 2001 to see her ill mother-in-law. The following colloquy then took place: Q. Okay. And after leaving Albania did you spend any time in any other country? A. We just transit, I’m not sure it was a few hours or what. Just a transit, you know, change of airplanes. Q. Mrs. Xhuti, do you have any criminal convictions? A. No. Q. Do you have enough money in your savings account to buy a ticket --