Case ID: f-appx_376/html/0680-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesus Baltazar RAMIREZ-LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72765.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 16, 2010.
    Bill Waddell, Esq., Law Offices of Bill Waddell, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Baltazar Ramirez-Leon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly denied Ramirez-Leon’s application for relief because he failed to depart within the voluntary departure period after receiving adequate notice of the penalties for failure to do so. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(l)(B) (failure to depart voluntarily within the time period results in a ten-year bar to certain forms of relief, including adjustment of status); De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 762 (9th Cir.2004) (BIA’s written notice of the penalties for failure to depart is adequate under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)).

Ramirez-Leon’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

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