Bachynskyy v. Holder, Jr., No. 10-2793 (7th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a Ukrainian citizen who entered the U.S. without inspection sought withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge stated that she was continuing the case for four months, but that if she decided before that date,"you don't need to come back to court. Just make sure you stay in touch with your lawyers." Voluntary departure was not discussed. Three days later, the IJ denied the claims, but granted voluntary departure. Petitioner's lawyer allegedly did not receive the decision until the day before a $500 bond was due, and the bond was never paid. The BIA dismissed an appeal and rejected his request to reinstate. While the Board was deliberating, new regulations went into effect requiring immigration judges to advise the noncitizen, before granting voluntary departure, of the amount of the voluntary departure bond and the duty to post bond within five business days. 8 C.F.R. 1240.26(c)(4) (2009). The Seventh Circuit rejected an appeal. Warnings regarding voluntary departure are not retroactively applicable. Petitioner cannot raise a colorable due process claim as there was no procedural defect based on the lack of advisals, and he did receive (though flawed) notice of the bond requirement.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.