Matter of Onyedibia, Interim Decision Number 2307

• Decision Date: 25 July 1974
• Docket Number: Interim Decision Number 2307,A-20607204,A-19701496
• Parties: MATTER OF ONYEDIBIA In Deportation Proceedings
• Court: U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals

15 I&N Dec. 37

MATTER OF ONYEDIBIA

In Deportation Proceedings

Interim Decision Number 2307

A-19701496

A-20607204

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Decided by Board July 25, 1974.

Respondents, who failed to depart within the time initially granted to depart voluntarily, subsequently filed a motion to reopen seeking a new grant of voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals has jurisdiction to grant the form of relief sought; however, in the absence of respondents' demonstration of any compelling reason or circumstance for their failure to depart within the period of time initially granted, the motion is denied.

CHARGES:

Order: Act of 1952 — Section 241(a)(9) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(9)] — Failed to maintain status (male respondent)

Act of 1952 — Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)] — Nonimmigrant — remained longer than permitted (female respondent)

Lodged: Act of 1952 — Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)] — Nonimmigrant — remained longer (male respondent)

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Martin Held, Esquire 1725 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036.

The alien respondents, husband and wife, are natives of Nigeria. In decisions dated June 6, 1973, the respondents were found deportable by an immigration judge as nonimmigrants who had remained beyond the authorized length of their stays. They were accorded the privilege of voluntary departure; however, they failed to depart from the United States within the period of time authorized by the immigration judge. They subsequently filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, seeking forms of relief over which neither the Board nor the immigration judge has jurisdiction. The immigration judge denied that motion, and, in an order dated April 30, 1974, we dismissed the respondents' appeal from that denial. The respondents have submitted a second motion seeking reopening. The motion will be denied.

The present motion requests reopening for the purpose of permitting the respondents to apply for a new grant of voluntary departure. The motion is accompanied by a partially completed brief whose preparation was evidently begun in connection with the respondents' earlier motion to reopen. The respondents have not directly attempted to justify or to explain their failure to take advantage of the immigration judge's initial grant of voluntary departure.

The respondents are not seeking an extension of voluntary departure, a request which could not properly be entertained by an immigration judge. See Matter of...