an alien to depart voluntarily under this section if the alien was previously permitted to so depart after having been found inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(A) of this title [aliens present in the United States without being admitted or paroled]. 10 . Rojas does not claim to have had relatives who were United States citizens or legal residents in 1998. 11 . The BIA reviews an IJ's exercise of discretion de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(f), (ii); Matter of A-S-B-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 493, 496-97 (BIA 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Huang v. Attorney Gen., 620 F.3d 372 (3d Cir.2010). 12 . Rojas also argues that district court's revocation of his supervised release from his 2008 conviction violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (<HOLDING>). As he concedes, United States v. Santana
holding that any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any fact other than fact of prior convictions which increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any fact that increases a sentence beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury holding that any fact other than that of a prior conviction that increases criminal penalties above the statutory maximum must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and found by a jury holding any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt