Filed: Jul. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 11-1843-ag Bandarovich v. Holder BIA A089 253 341 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTAT
Summary: 11-1843-ag Bandarovich v. Holder BIA A089 253 341 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATI..
More
11-1843-ag
Bandarovich v. Holder
BIA
A089 253 341
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL
RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING
A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE
FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”).
A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 2nd day of July, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
REENA RAGGI,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
ANDREI BANDAROVICH,
Petitioner,
v. 11-1843-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation
Counsel; Anna Nelson, Trial Attorney,
Office of Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
review is DENIED.
Andrei Bandarovich, a native of the former Soviet Union
and citizen of Belarus, challenges the April 6, 2011
decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen, In re
Andrei Bandarovich, No. A089 253 341 (B.I.A. Apr. 6, 2011),
a decision we review for abuse of discretion, see Ali v.
Gonzales,
448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior
proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain
our decision to deny the petition for review.
Bandarovich does not dispute the BIA’s conclusion that,
because he filed his motion after his voluntary departure
period expired, he cannot unilaterally withdraw his request
for voluntary departure under Dada v. Mukasey,
554 U.S. 1,
21 (2008) (holding that alien “must be permitted to
withdraw, unilaterally, a voluntary departure request before
expiration of the departure period” (emphasis added)); see 8
C.F.R. § 1240.26. Rather, Bandarovich contends reopening is
necessary because the immigration judge (“IJ”) did not
2
explain the consequences of a failure to abide by the
voluntary departure order and therefore violated his due
process rights.
The record is to the contrary. The IJ specifically
enumerated to Bandarovich and his wife the consequences of
the voluntary departure order, advising them that failure to
depart within the time specified would result in a removal
order and ineligibility to receive certain benefits,
including adjustment of status. The IJ further offered
Bandarovich and his wife a moment to discuss the applicable
consequences with counsel before rendering the decision,
which Bandarovich, through counsel, declined.1 Finally, the
written order of the IJ and the BIA’s 2010 decision,
documents which Bandarovich does not dispute receiving, both
discuss the consequences of any failure to abide by the
voluntary departure order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d). Under
these circumstances, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
rejecting Bandarovich’s bare assertions that he did not
knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily agree to entry of
the order. See Burger v. Gonzales,
498 F.3d 131, 134 (2d
1
On appeal, Bandarovich has expressly disclaimed any
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
3
Cir. 2007) (“To establish a violation of due process, an
alien must show that she was denied a full and fair
opportunity to present her claims or that the IJ or BIA
otherwise deprived her of fundamental fairness” (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4