R-P

Interim Decision #3141




                              MATTER OF R-P-
                          In Deportation Proceedings
                                    A 29323829
                                      -




                   Decided by Board December 21, 1990

(1)Where an immigration judge in deportation proceedings issues a decision granting an
  alien voluntary departure, the sole relief requested, the Board of Immigration Appeals
  may summarily dismiss the alien's appeal from that decision pursuant to 

(d)(1-a)(iii) (1990).
(2)The Board will not grant a further period of voluntary departure to an alien who files
  a frivolous appeal from a decision which does not adversely affect him.
CHARGE:
Order: Act of 1952--Sec. 241(a)(2) [

(a)(2)1—Entered without inspection
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:                              ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
  Pro se                                               Kee Ling
                                                        General Attorney

BY: Milbollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members


   In a decision dated November 27, 1989, the immigration judge
found the respondent deportable pursuant to section 241(a)(2) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 

(a)(2) (1988), and
granted him the privilege of voluntary departure. The respondent has
appealed from that decision. The appeal will be dismissed.
   The respondent is a 28-year-old native and citizen of Nicaragua. On
August 3, 1989, he appeared with counsel, conceded deportability, and
requested asylum, withholding of deportation, and voluntary departure. The immigration judge continued the hearing in order to allow
the respondent to file his application for the relief requested. On
November 27, 1989, the respondent and counsel reappeared for a
hearing. At that time counsel informed the immigration judge that the
respondent wished to withdraw his application for asylum and
withholding of deportation and requested in lieu thereof a period of 6
months' voluntary departure. After ascertaining that the respondent
had sufficient funds to depart and that he agreed to leave by the date
ordered, the immigration judge granted the respondent voluntary
                                          230
                                                             Interim Decision #3141

departure for 6 months. Counsel then indicated that there would be no
appeal from the decision. However, on December 6, 1989, a Notice of
Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Form I-290A), signed by
the respondent, was filed. In the appeal the respondent alleged as
follows:
   A careful reveiw [sic] of the facts in this case demonstrates that the Immigration
   Judge erred in denying my reqeust [sic] for relief. In addition, the Immigration Judge
   misstated the facts in rendering his decision.


It was also indicated that a separate brief or statement would be filed
in support of the Notice of Appeal, but none has been forthcoming,
nor has any explanation been offered by the respondent for his failure
to file such brief or statement.
   While reaffirming our conclusion in Matter of Yi&gas Aguirre, 

 (BIA 1969), that an appeal to the Board of Immigration
Appeals tolls the running of a grant of voluntary departure, we
recognized in Matter of Chouliaris, 

 (BIA 1977), that
a less desirable effect of an appeal was to unduly prolong the departure
of deportable aliens. We nevertheless determined that such an
undesirable effect was outweighed by the need to assure aliens that
there would be no risk of losing a grant of voluntary departure by filing
an appeal from an adverse decision of an immigration judge. However,
we have also held that where an appeal is dismissed under 

(d)(1-a)(iv) as frivolous or filed solely for the purpose of delay,
the alien should not be rewarded with a further grant of voluntary
departure by this Board. Matter of Patel, 

 (BIA 1986).
That reasoning is equally applicable here. Therefore, we hold that
where an immigration judge grants an alien voluntary departure,
which was the only relief requested, and an appeal from that decision
is appropriate for summary dismissal pursuant to 

(d)(1-
a)(iii) (1990),' the Board will not grant a further period of voluntary
departure. To the extent that our decision in Matter of Chouliarts,
supra, is inconsistent with this decision, it is hereby modified.
   By this decision we are not curtailing the right of an alien to file an
appeal from an adverse decision of an immigration judge. However,
the operative term here is "adverse decision." A decision of the
immigration judge is not "adverse" to an alien where he has been
granted the sole relief requested.
  Accordingly, the appeal will be summarily dismissed pursuant to 

(d)(1-a)(iii) (1990).
  'According to 

(d)(1-a)(iii) (1990), the Board may summarily dismiss
any appeal in any case in which the appeal is from an order that granted the party
concerned the relief he requested.

                                          231
Interim Decision #3141

  ORDER:         The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 

(d)(1-aXiii) (1990).
  FURTHER ORDER               The respondent is ordered deported to
Nicaragua pursuant to the charge contained in his Order to Show
Cause.




                               232