Case ID: f-appx_368/html/0737-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sergio SAMANO REYES; Susana Martinez Mojica, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75154.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2010.
    Vincenta E. Montoya, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioners.
    
      District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Minick, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sergio Samano Reyes and Susana Martinez Mojica, spouses and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision to pretermit their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Martinez-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 732, 733 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly deemed Petitioners’ applications for cancellation of removal abandoned after they failed to file them by the deadline set by the IJ. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (authorizing IJs to set filing deadlines and stating that an application not filed by the deadline “shall be deemed waived”); see also Matter of R-R- 20 I. & N. Dec. 547, 549 (BIA 1992) (“The Board has long held that applications for benefits under the Act are properly denied as abandoned when the alien fails to timely file them.”).

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