Chedad v. Gonzales, No. 05-2782. Another bad case from the First today. This immigration Moroccan immigration status adjustment petitioner, that was married to a newly-minted American, overstayed a voluntary departure order. He argues, however, that filing a motion to reopen tolls the running of such period, or that the BIA allowing a motion to reopen (and remanding to the IJ) stripped the voluntary departure order of any legal significance. Sucker! He loses. The First acknowledges that they are in the minority, and despite the fact that they are saying that someone that is granted a motion to reopen must leave the country to even have his claims heard, they defer to the government’s arguments because the government’s isn’t a bunch of foreigners. Therefore, “We read [ 8 U.S.C. ]§§ 1229a(7)(C)(1) and 1229c(b)(2), then, as evincing a congressional intent to make the benefits of voluntary departure available only to aliens who agree to give up the fight and leave the country willingly.”
There is a bunch of stupid rambling about why voluntary departure is so important, and why we need to hurt other people in order to keep it working. You can skip it.
Lipez dissents for obvious reasons. Maybe this will go en banc.