Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0702-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Artemio MENDEZ-LOPEZ and Otilia Martinez-Geminiano, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 08-74326, 10-73039.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2012.
    
    Filed March 13, 2012.
    Barbara K. Strickland, Law Offices of Barbara K. Strickland, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Siu P. Wong, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Artemio Mendez-Lopez and Otilia Martinez-Geminiano, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their motions to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Granados-Oseguera v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011, 1014 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motions to reopen where petitioners failed to depart the United States during their voluntary departure period, and were therefore statutorily ineligible for the relief requested. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(l); Granados-Oseguera, 546 F.3d at 1016 (statutory bar to relief resulting from failure to voluntarily depart is not subject to an exception in cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions.

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.