Matter of Brown, 18 I. & N. Dec. 324 (BIA 1988) (LPR respondent was convicted of poss. marijuana, proceedings commenced, LPR conceded deportability as charged and filed applied for 212(c) waiver; LPR then departed US for temporary visit abroad, and returned to the U.S.; IJ terminated proceeding and ruled that 212(c) was abandoned; BIA revered, holding LPR's departure did not interrupt proceeding, and it could continue, assuming LPR still was deportable on same grounds; INS did not need to start new proceeding , but could issue another OSC or amend if they chose; and LPR had not abandoned his application for 212(c).
1.      Check when NTA was actually FILED with the court; a client is not in proceedings unless/until it's filed; if the client leaves before then, proceedings are improvidently begun; 2.      If client left after NTA filed, but before finding of removability, not a self-deport; only self-deport if after IJ decision (i.e., appeals and MTRs deemed withdrawn). 3.      CBP should realized that a client, returning to the United States is in proceedings, and parole the client in, possibly detaining client if appropriate. 4.      ICE Counsel regularly confuses the self-deport provision AFTER decision with any departure.  5.      ICE will need to amend or issue a new NTA to accommodate the new facts. Thanks to Laura L. Lichter, Esq. for this analysis.