BIA Upholds Civil Penalty for Failure to Depart—and Confirms That an NTA Does Not Need To Be Translated

BIA Upholds Civil Penalty for Failure to Depart—and Confirms That an NTA Does Not Need To Be Translated

Matter of R-P-L-, 29 I&N Dec. 859 (BIA 2026): What Immigrants Need To Know About Voluntary Departure, Civil Fines, and English-Language Immigration Notices

On August 28, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued an important precedent decision in Matter of R-P-L-, 29 I&N Dec. 859 (BIA 2026). The Board upheld a $3,000 civil monetary penalty imposed by the Department of Homeland Security against a person who remained in the United States after the expiration of his voluntary-departure period.

The decision also rejected the respondent’s argument that he had not received legally sufficient notice because the relevant documents and warnings were not provided in a language he understood. The BIA reaffirmed a rule that can have serious consequences in almost every immigration case: the Immigration and Nationality Act generally does not require a Notice to Appear, or other immigration documents, to be written or explained in a person’s native language.

For immigrants and their families, Matter of R-P-L- is a warning not to ignore an English-language immigration document, an order granting voluntary departure, or a deadline simply because the person did not fully understand it. The consequences can include a substantial civil fine, a removal order, and a 10-year bar to important forms of immigration relief.

What Happened in Matter of R-P-L-?

The respondent was a native and citizen of India. In December 2003, an Immigration Judge denied his applications for asylum and withholding of removal but granted him voluntary departure. The Immigration Judge’s written order warned that if he did not leave by the deadline, he could face a civil penalty of between $1,000 and $5,000.

The respondent appealed. In December 2004, the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision and reinstated voluntary departure for 30 days. The Board’s order again warned him that failure to leave on time could result in:

• A civil penalty of at least $1,000 and no more than $5,000; and
• A 10-year period of ineligibility for specified forms of immigration relief.

The respondent did not depart. More than 20 years later, in April 2025, DHS served him with a Notice of Intention to Fine, Form I-79. DHS ultimately imposed a $3,000 penalty. The respondent appealed, but the BIA dismissed the appeal and upheld the fine.

The BIA’s Main Holding: DHS Properly Imposed the $3,000 Fine

Section 240B(d)(1) of the INA provides that a person who is permitted to depart voluntarily but voluntarily fails to depart within the specified period is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000. Subject to a narrow statutory exception, that person also becomes ineligible for 10 years for relief under INA sections 240B, 240A, 245, 248, and 249.

Those provisions include several forms of relief that may otherwise provide a path to lawful status, such as:

• Voluntary departure;
• Cancellation of removal;
• Adjustment of status;
• Change of nonimmigrant status; and
• Registry.

The BIA found that the essential facts were undisputed. The respondent had requested and received voluntary departure, the Immigration Judge and the BIA had both warned him of the penalties, and he had not left the United States before the deadline. The Board therefore concluded that DHS established the violation and properly imposed the $3,000 fine.

DHS Does Not Have To Prove a “Willful” Violation

One of the most important parts of the decision is the BIA’s discussion of intent. The respondent argued, in substance, that he had not willfully violated the voluntary-departure order because he continued looking for lawful ways to remain in the United States.

The BIA rejected that position. Section 240B(d)(1) does not require DHS to prove that the failure to depart was willful. According to the Board, the statutory consequences apply when a person receives voluntary departure and voluntarily fails to leave during the authorized period. The word “willful” is not part of that provision.

This distinction matters. A person generally cannot defeat the penalty merely by showing that he hoped to legalize his status, had a pending or approved family petition, or did not intend to disrespect the court’s order. In Matter of R-P-L-, the Board specifically explained that continuing to pursue a lawful immigration option did not authorize the respondent to remain indefinitely after the voluntary-departure deadline.

The Board further noted that failure to depart made the respondent ineligible to adjust status for 10 years—even if he had an approved visa petition. An approved I-130 or another petition does not, by itself, erase the statutory consequences of overstaying voluntary departure.

Financial Difficulty Did Not Excuse the Failure To Depart

The respondent also argued that he lacked the resources to return to his country. The BIA was not persuaded. Eligibility for post-conclusion voluntary departure requires the person to establish that he has the means and intention to depart. Because the respondent had obtained voluntary departure on that basis, the Board treated the order as an explicit direction to leave within the permitted 30 days.

This is an important reminder that voluntary departure should not be requested or accepted casually. It is a discretionary benefit with binding conditions, not an informal extension of time in the United States.

The NTA Does Not Need To Contain the Voluntary-Departure Fine Warning

The respondent argued that he had not received the required warning because the fine information was not included in his Notice to Appear. The BIA rejected that argument as well.

Under INA section 240B(d)(3), the order permitting voluntary departure must inform the person of the penalties for failing to leave. The statute does not require those warnings to appear in the NTA.

In this case, both the Immigration Judge’s order and the BIA’s later decision expressly included the warning. That was sufficient. The NTA begins removal proceedings and contains charges, allegations, and hearing-related information, but it is not required to contain every warning that may become relevant after the court decides the case.

An NTA or Other Immigration Document Generally Does Not Have To Be in Your Native Language

The respondent also argued that the warning should not be attributed to him because his lawyer did not provide it in a language he understood. The BIA reaffirmed its prior decision in Matter of J.J. Rodriguez, 27 I&N Dec. 762 (BIA 2020): there is no general requirement that a person in immigration proceedings receive an NTA or another immigration document in his or her native language.

The Board cited decisions from several federal courts supporting that rule. Those cases recognize that personal service of an English-language notice on a non-English speaker will ordinarily satisfy due process. The Second Circuit, whose decisions govern cases in New York, has likewise stated that the relevant notice statute does not require notice of the consequences of failing to appear to be provided in any particular language.

This does not mean that language access is unimportant. Immigration court respondents are generally entitled to interpretation during their hearings when needed to understand the proceeding. But interpretation at a hearing is different from a legal requirement that DHS or the immigration court translate every NTA, notice, motion, or written order into the recipient’s preferred language.

The practical rule is simple: if you receive an immigration document in English and do not understand it, obtain a competent translation and legal advice immediately. Do not wait for the government to send a translated version. In most cases, that translated copy will never arrive, while the original deadline will continue to run.

Notice to the Attorney Is Generally Notice to the Client

The BIA also emphasized that proper notice to an attorney of record is generally considered proper notice to the client. The respondent did not prove that his attorney failed to notify him about the voluntary-departure order and its consequences.

This point has major practical significance. A person cannot safely ignore communications from counsel or assume that a deadline does not apply until the government contacts the person directly. Clients should keep their lawyer informed of every change of address, phone number, and email address and should request a copy and explanation of every court order.

At the same time, Matter of R-P-L- does not eliminate every possible defense based on lack of knowledge or attorney error. The Board cited Matter of Zmijewska, 24 I&N Dec. 87 (BIA 2007), which recognized that voluntary-departure penalties may not apply when a person, through no fault of his or her own, was unaware of the voluntary-departure order. A genuine ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim may also be relevant, but it normally must satisfy the procedural requirements established in Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). The respondent in R-P-L- did not raise or properly develop such a claim.

These exceptions are highly fact-specific. They should not be treated as an easy solution after a deadline has passed.

Civil Penalties Can Extend Beyond the $1,000-to-$5,000 Voluntary-Departure Fine

The particular penalty in Matter of R-P-L- arose under INA section 240B(d), which authorizes a fine between $1,000 and $5,000 for failure to comply with voluntary departure. The BIA found that $3,000 was within the authorized range and was not excessive.

The decision also noted a separate and potentially much larger civil-penalty provision. Under INA section 274D and the applicable regulation cited by the Board, a person who willfully fails or refuses to depart under a final removal order may face a civil penalty of up to $998 per day.

These are distinct legal provisions with different elements. The daily penalty mentioned by the Board should not be confused with the fixed statutory range for overstaying voluntary departure. Still, the decision signals that DHS may use financial penalties as an enforcement tool even many years after an order was entered.

Voluntary Departure Is a Serious Strategic Decision

Voluntary departure can offer meaningful benefits. It may allow a person to leave without having a removal order executed and may avoid some consequences associated with formal removal. But it comes with strict deadlines and potentially devastating penalties.

Before requesting or accepting voluntary departure, a person should understand:

1. The exact departure deadline;
2. Whether an appeal will affect or reinstate the voluntary-departure period;
3. Whether filing a motion to reopen, motion to reconsider, or petition for review affects voluntary departure;
4. The 10-year bar to specified forms of relief if the person fails to depart;
5. The possibility of a civil monetary penalty; and
6. Whether any pending petition or application actually permits the person to remain.

Procedural choices can have different consequences depending on when the voluntary-departure order was issued and what action is filed. Individualized legal advice is essential.

What Should You Do If You Receive an English-Language NTA or Court Order?

Take the document seriously from the first day. A person who cannot read English should not sign, discard, or postpone reviewing an immigration notice. Practical steps include:

• Save every page and envelope;
• Record the date and method of service;
• Obtain a reliable translation promptly;
• Check the EOIR case system, but do not rely on it as a substitute for the written notice;
• Consult an experienced immigration attorney before the hearing or filing deadline;
• Keep DHS, the immigration court, and counsel updated with the correct address using the required forms; and
• Ask counsel to explain every deadline and the consequences of noncompliance in a language you understand.

Missing a hearing can lead to an in absentia removal order. Missing an appeal deadline can make an Immigration Judge’s decision final. Missing a voluntary-departure deadline can lead to civil penalties and a 10-year bar. The fact that the document was written only in English will usually not undo those consequences.

What Matter of R-P-L- Means for Immigrants in New York and Across the United States

Matter of R-P-L- reinforces several strict rules. DHS may impose a civil monetary penalty when a person fails to comply with voluntary departure. The government does not need to place the voluntary-departure fine warning in the NTA. Immigration documents generally do not have to be translated into the person’s native language. Notice to the attorney of record is normally treated as notice to the client. And a person’s ongoing effort to obtain legal status does not automatically suspend a voluntary-departure deadline.

The decision also demonstrates why deadlines and written orders must be analyzed immediately. Immigration cases often involve overlapping proceedings, petitions, motions, appeals, and removal-related consequences. A well-intentioned choice—such as waiting for an approved family petition—can create a statutory bar if it conflicts with a court order.

Speak With an Experienced New York Immigration Lawyer

If you received a Notice to Appear, were granted voluntary departure, missed a departure deadline, face a DHS civil fine, or believe that prior counsel failed to explain an immigration order, obtain legal advice promptly. The available strategy may depend on the exact order, service history, deadlines, procedural record, and federal circuit governing the case.

The Law Office of Alena Shautsova represents clients in immigration court, BIA appeals, motions to reopen, removal defense, and other complex immigration matters. To request a paid consultation with an experienced New York immigration lawyer, visit shautsova.com or call 917-885-2261.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law is fact-specific, and rules or procedures may change.