context: In Zazueta-Carrillo, Vasquez-Lopez and Barragan-Sanchez, we relied on the aliens' previous voluntary departure agreements in rejecting their arguments for relief.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 343 F.3d 974, 974
citation_a.parenthetical: "While the statute provides some incentives to an alien to apply for voluntary departure and thus avoid removal proceedings and removal, nothing there suggests that an alien who commits to departure in order to avoid such proceedings is nevertheless entitled to continue accruing 'presence' so as to become eligible for other discretionary relief."
citation_a.sentence: Zazueta-Carrillo, 322 F.3d at 1173-74 (rejecting alien’s argument that the voluntary departure period did not begin until after our review, in light of the “specific policy” of voluntary departure to encourage prompt departure); Vasquez-Lopez, 343 F.3d at 974 (“While the statute provides some incentives to an alien to apply for voluntary departure and thus avoid removal proceedings and removal, nothing there suggests that an alien who commits to departure in order to avoid such proceedings is nevertheless entitled to continue accruing ‘presence’ so as to become eligible for other discretionary relief.”); Barragan-Sanchez, 471 F.2d at 760-61 (holding that because alien’s two previous voluntary departures were the result of implied agreements and were not, therefore, strictly voluntary, they constituted significant departures that precluded a finding of seven years’ continuous presence in the United States under a rule that excused absences that were brief, casual and innocent); cf. Doherty, 502 U.S. at 324,112 S.Ct. 719 (holding that “the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in denying reopening ... on the basis that respondent failed to satisfactorily explain his previous withdrawal of these claims”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that "the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in denying reopening ... on the basis that respondent failed to satisfactorily explain his previous withdrawal of these claims"
citation_b.sentence: Zazueta-Carrillo, 322 F.3d at 1173-74 (rejecting alien’s argument that the voluntary departure period did not begin until after our review, in light of the “specific policy” of voluntary departure to encourage prompt departure); Vasquez-Lopez, 343 F.3d at 974 (“While the statute provides some incentives to an alien to apply for voluntary departure and thus avoid removal proceedings and removal, nothing there suggests that an alien who commits to departure in order to avoid such proceedings is nevertheless entitled to continue accruing ‘presence’ so as to become eligible for other discretionary relief.”); Barragan-Sanchez, 471 F.2d at 760-61 (holding that because alien’s two previous voluntary departures were the result of implied agreements and were not, therefore, strictly voluntary, they constituted significant departures that precluded a finding of seven years’ continuous presence in the United States under a rule that excused absences that were brief, casual and innocent); cf. Doherty, 502 U.S. at 324,112 S.Ct. 719 (holding that “the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in denying reopening ... on the basis that respondent failed to satisfactorily explain his previous withdrawal of these claims”).