Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortappealhearingmotionasylumvisa
tortappealhearingmotionasylumvisa

Related Cases

Nkacoang v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Mustafa v. Holder
View Case »
Mekhoukh v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Wanrong Lin v. Holder
View Case »
Haw. Saeronam Presbyterian Church v. Ziglar
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Meza-Vallejos v. Holder

Facts

Meza-Vallejos last entered the United States on February 8, 1998 on a non-immigrant visa with authorization to stay through May 15, 1998. He overstayed his visa and subsequently filed an application for political asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in April 1999. Following a hearing on the merits in March 2004, an immigration judge (IJ) denied Meza-Vallejos's applications for relief but granted him voluntary departure. The BIA dismissed the appeal in May 2005 and renewed the grant of voluntary departure for an additional sixty days, through July 16, 2005 `a Saturday. Meza-Vallejos did not file a petition for review of the BIA's May 2005 order. Instead, on Monday, July 18, 2005, he filed a motion to reopen with the BIA and an emergency request for an extension of his voluntary departure period.

Meza-Vallejos last entered the United States on February 8, 1998 on a non-immigrant visa with authorization to stay through May 15, 1998. He overstayed his visa and subsequently filed an application for political asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in April 1999. Following a hearing on the merits in March 2004, an immigration judge (IJ) denied Meza-Vallejos's applications for relief but granted him voluntary departure. The BIA dismissed the appeal in May 2005 and renewed the grant of voluntary departure for an additional sixty days, through July 16, 2005 `a Saturday. Meza-Vallejos did not file a petition for review of the BIA's May 2005 order. Instead, on Monday, July 18, 2005, he filed a motion to reopen with the BIA and an emergency request for an extension of his voluntary departure period.

Issue

The threshold question was whether the alien's period of voluntary departure expired on Saturday, the sixtieth day following the BIA's final order, or if, instead, that period expired on Monday, which coincided with his filing of a renewed motion to reopen with the BIA.

The threshold question was whether the alien's period of voluntary departure expired on Saturday, the sixtieth day following the BIA's final order, or if, instead, that period expired on Monday, which coincided with his filing of a renewed motion to reopen with the BIA.

Rule

We hold that where, as here, a period of voluntary departure technically expires on a weekend or holiday, and an immigrant files a motion that would affect his request for voluntary departure on the next business day, such period legally expires on that next business day.

We hold that where, as here, a period of voluntary departure technically expires on a weekend or holiday, and an immigrant files a motion that would affect his request for voluntary departure on the next business day, such period legally expires on that next business day.

Analysis

The BIA explained that the day following the final administrative order granting voluntary departure was the first day of the voluntary departure period and the sixtieth day following the final administrative order granting voluntary departure was the sixtieth day. It reasoned that there was no need to treat the sixtieth day differently if it happened to fall on a weekend or holiday because, unlike a filing requirement, voluntary departure could be accomplished by departing the United States by land, sea, or air any day of the year. The BIA's logic was not unreasonable. On the other hand, the consequence of its reasoning was effectively to deprive an alien of the final day or two of his 60-day period for voluntary departure where the alien wished to file a motion to reopen and the last day or two of his voluntary departure period fell on a weekend.

The BIA explained that the day following the final administrative order granting voluntary departure was the first day of the voluntary departure period and the sixtieth day following the final administrative order granting voluntary departure was the sixtieth day. It reasoned that there was no need to treat the sixtieth day differently if it happened to fall on a weekend or holiday because, unlike a filing requirement, voluntary departure could be accomplished by departing the United States by land, sea, or air any day of the year. The BIA's logic was not unreasonable. On the other hand, the consequence of its reasoning was effectively to deprive an alien of the final day or two of his 60-day period for voluntary departure where the alien wished to file a motion to reopen and the last day or two of his voluntary departure period fell on a weekend.

Conclusion

We therefore GRANT the petition for review and remand this case to the agency for adjudication of the petitioner's motion to reopen on the merits.

We therefore GRANT the petition for review and remand this case to the agency for adjudication of the petitioner's motion to reopen on the merits.

Who won?

Meza-Vallejos prevailed in the case because the court found that his motion to reopen was timely filed on the next business day after the expiration of his voluntary departure period.

Meza-Vallejos prevailed in the case because the court found that his motion to reopen was timely filed on the next business day after the expiration of his voluntary departure period.

You must be