If all relief fails, would voluntary departure or post-order options preserve future immigration eligibility?
Voluntary departure under INA § 240B avoids the 5-, 10-, or 20-year reentry bars triggered by an order of removal. Pre-conclusion VD requires no concessions; post-conclusion VD requires bond, departure within 60 days, and forfeiture of all reserved appeals. A failed VD bond converts to a final removal order *automatically* — many pro se respondents have no idea they've lost VD until ICE shows up. Stipulated post-order custody review (POCR) and motions to reopen under INA § 240(c)(7) preserve some options after a final order.
Context & Examples
Real example — Mauricio, Lodi. Mauricio's cancellation case looked weak — only 9 years presence, qualifying U.S. citizen wife but no medical hardship. We negotiated pre-conclusion VD with the OCC at the master calendar. He left within 60 days, paid the bond, returned to Mexico. His wife's I-130 was already pending. Eight months later he consular-processed an immigrant visa at Ciudad Juárez and re-entered as an LPR — no reentry bar.
Horror story — same court, post-conclusion VD. A pro se respondent took post-conclusion VD in 2022 thinking it was "just leaving." His employer-sponsored departure plan fell through, he stayed past the 60-day window, the bond was forfeited, and a final removal order automatically issued. ICE picked him up at the bond posting address. He was deported with a 10-year bar — the worst of both worlds.
Why this matters: When VD is the right answer, pre-conclusion VD is dramatically safer than post-conclusion. We never accept post-conclusion VD without a fully funded, calendar-confirmed departure plan and an alternate flight booked.
Sources