SUMMARY ORDER

Andrei Bandarovich, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Belarus, challenges the April 6, 2011 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen, In re Andrei Bandarovich, No. A089 253 341 (B.I.A. Apr. 6, 2011), a decision we review for abuse of discretion, see Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to deny the petition for review.

Bandarovich does not dispute the BIA’s conclusion that, because he filed his motion after his voluntary departure period expired, he cannot unilaterally withdraw his request for voluntary departure under Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1, 21, 128 S.Ct. 2307, 171 L.Ed.2d 178 (2008) (holding that alien “must be permitted to withdraw, unilaterally, a voluntary departure request before expiration of the departure period” (emphasis added)); see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26. Rather, Bandarovich contends reopening is necessary because the immigration judge (“IJ”) did not explain the consequences of a failure to abide by the voluntary departure order and therefore violated his due process rights.

The record is to the contrary. The IJ specifically enumerated to Bandarovich and his wife the consequences of the voluntary departure order, advising them that *55 failure to depart within the time specified would result in a removal order and ineligibility to receive certain benefits, including adjustment of status. The IJ further offered Bandarovich and his wife a moment to discuss the applicable consequences with counsel before rendering the decision, which Bandarovich, through counsel, declined. 1 Finally, the written order of the IJ and the BIA’s 2010 decision, documents which Bandarovich does not dispute receiving, both discuss the consequences of any failure to abide by the voluntary departure order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d). Under these circumstances, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Bandarovich’s bare assertions that he did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily agree to entry of the order. See Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (“To establish a violation of due process, an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims or that the IJ or BIA otherwise deprived her of fundamental fairness” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.