that because it is "unclear from [Dada ] whether the filing of a motion to reopen will be construed as a request to withdraw the voluntary departure ... individuals may consider explicitly requesting withdrawal....” Dada v. Mukasey Q&A: Preliminary Analysis and Approaches to Consider, AILF (June 17, 2008), http://www.ailf.org/lac/ chdocs/Dada-FAQ.pdf (last visited June 28, 2011). 6 . This is not to say that Patel’s counsel is without fault. To the contrary, the quality of Patel’s representation before the immigration court and on appeal leaves something to be desired. Out of an abundance of caution, more competent counsel, with little added effort, would have avoided any ambiguity by explicitly requesting withdrawal of voluntary departure in the motion to reopen or i 434 (5th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Rojo-Resendiz v. Mukasey, 297 Fed.Appx. 292
holding that bia did not err in denying motion to reopen that was filed after expiration of aliens voluntary departure period because alien had failed to depart holding bia did not err in determining request for stay of voluntary departure is not an implicit request for a withdrawal of voluntary departure holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen holding the bia did not err in denying aliens motion to stay voluntary departure period pending determination on the motion to reopen holding that the bia does not err by denying a motion to reopen without an opposition from the government