With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the appeal was rendered moot by the government’s removal of Jimenez-Barrera, citing In re Luis-Rodriguez, 22 I. & N. Dec. 747 (BIA 1999). Luis held that “where a controversy has become so attenuated or where a change in the law or an action by one of the parties has deprived an appeal or motion of practical significance, considerations of prudence may warrant dismissal of an appeal or denial of a motion as moot.” Id. at 753 (emphasis added). Luis does not stand for the proposition that a forcible removal of a petitioner from the United States by the government automatically moots a pending appeal. In fact, the holding in Luis was that the departure of the petitioner in that case did not moot the appeal. Id. at 754; see also Matter of Bulnes-Nolasco, 25 I. & N. Dec. 57 (BIA 2009) (<HOLDING>); In re Morales, 21 I. & N. Dec. 130, 147 (BIA

A: holding the bia did not err in denying aliens motion to stay voluntary departure period pending determination on the motion to reopen
B: holding that an aliens departure based on an in absentia removal order does not necessarily deprive an ij of jurisdiction to decide a motion to reopen
C: holding that aliens must be permitted to unilaterally withdraw voluntary departure requests in order to pursue motions to reopen
D: holding that when an ij issues a decision granting an aliens application for withholding of removal without a grant of asylum the decision must include an explicit order of removal designating a country of removal
B.