of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to decide, then and there, whether to reserve or waive the right to appeal. See In re Rodriguez-Diaz, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1320, 1323 n. 2 (BIA 2000) (advising IJs to inform respondents: “If you want to appeal my decision, or if you want to think about appeal and decide later, you must reserve appeal now.”). If the parties both waive appeal, and the waiver is otherwise valid, then, the BIA maintains, it “do[es] not have jurisdiction over the decision of [the] Immigration Judge.” Id. at 1322 (citing Matter of Shih, 20 I. & N. Dec. 697 (BIA 1993)). That is so, the BIA says, because “[w]henever the right to appeal is [validly] waived, the decision of the Immigration Judge becomes final and may be implemented immediately.” Id.; see also Shih, 20 I. & N. Dec. at 699 (<HOLDING>). To establish that an IJ’s decision is final
holding that defendants failure to appeal the voluntariness of a plea constitutes waiver of the issue on subsequent appeal holding that because the immigration judges decision is final upon appeal waiver the applicants subsequent attempt to withdraw his waiver by filing a notice of appeal  has no effect and the bia therefore lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the case holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review holding the court lacked jurisdiction where the defendant failed to file a notice of appeal on the attorneys fee issue because a supplemental notice of appeal is required for us to have jurisdiction over an attorneys fees issue that becomes final subsequent to the initial notice of appeal holding that a failure to file an appeal is within the scope of the waiver because the failure does not undermine the validity of the plea or waiver