record that Zazueta-Carrillo ever requested an extension of his voluntary departure period. 8 . Whether we have power to stay an alien’s voluntary departure period while we review a removal order is not an issue in this case. Zazueta-Carrillo applied for a stay of removal while we considered his underlying claim for relief, and we denied it. Had Zazueta-Carril-lo been granted a stay under the traditional standards for interim injunctive relief, see Maharaj v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 963, 966 (9th Cir.2002) (defining these), and were the Attorney General then to challenge our power to delay the start of the voluntary departure period, our analysis would shift to the scope of our equitable power, which is not at issue here. Cf. Andreiu v. Ashcroft, 253 F.3d 477 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Maharaj, 295 F.3d at 966 (holding similarly
holding that an iirira provision on reinstatement of orders of removal did not apply to aliens who reentered prior to the iiriras effective date holding that aedpa is not applied retroactively to pending habeas petitions holding that neither aedpa nor iirira expressly repeals the availability of habeas review of deportation or removal orders holding that review under  2241 still available notwithstanding express language in iirira barring review by any court of final orders of removal for aliens deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense and distinguishing between direct and collateral review holding that iirira does not bar us from staying removal orders pending resolution of petitions for review