Case ID: f-appx_114/html/0881-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andres VASQUEZ-PLAZA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71763.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
    
    Decided Dec. 10, 2004.
    Cristian M. Ramorino, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Anthony C. Payne, Hugh G. Mullane, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Andres Vasquez-Plaza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Plaza’s motion to reopen because he overstayed his period of voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d); de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 763-64 (9th Cir.2004).

Contrary to Vasquez-Plaza’s contention, the BIA gave him adequate notice of the consequences for failing to voluntarily depart within the specified time period. See id at 762.

Vasquez-Plaza’s remaining contentions also lack merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.