Opinion ID: 4517052
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did Lopez otherwise waive his right to appeal?

Text: Resolution of this issue is now straightforward. There is no evidence that Lopez voluntarily left the country, even briefly, while his appeal was pending. See Aguilera-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 835, 838 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that voluntary departures, even if “brief, casual, and innocent,” withdraw an appeal under § 1003.4). The record establishes only that the government removed Lopez on the same day 2 The government relies on two memorandum dispositions stating that lawful removal qualifies as a departure under § 1003.4. See Kureghyan v. Holder, 338 F. App’x 622, 624 (9th Cir. 2009) (observing that the BIA had lost jurisdiction over a prior appeal because the petitioner’s removal withdrew his appeal under § 1003.4); Ertur v. Gonzales, 229 F. App’x 583, 584 (9th Cir. 2007) (reviewing the decision of an IJ directly after the BIA determined that the petitioner’s appeal had been withdrawn under § 1003.4 because he was removed). But, in addition to being non-precedential, these dispositions addressed the issue before us today only in passing. And, both predate Madrigal and Coyt. We therefore do not find them persuasive in this case. 12 LOPEZ-ANGEL V. BARR he was released from criminal custody after the dismissal of the illegal reentry case. 3 We therefore hold that Lopez did not withdraw his appeal of the denial of his motions to reopen and reconsider when he was involuntarily removed from the United States. We grant the petition for review so that BIA can reinstate his appeal. We of course express no opinion on the merits of that appeal; we hold only that Lopez did not withdraw it. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.