UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JESUS NAUM MEZA-RIOS, a/k/a Jesus Payon, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Respondent. No. 13-9521 (Petition for Review)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TYMKOVICH, EBEL, and HOLMES , Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Jesus Naum Meza-Rios has f iled an emergency motion for stay of removal pending review. Upon considerati on, we deny the stay of removal and dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

Mr. Meza-Rios is a native and c itizen of Mexico. During removal proceedings, he conceded that he was subject to removal as “[a]n alien present in the

* This panel has determined that oral ar gument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It ma y be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32. 1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 27, 2013

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - United States without being admitted or parole d . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Although he initially applied for cancellation of removal, he abandoned that request

for relief at the outset of th e merits hearing before the immigration judge (IJ). He requested and was granted volun tary departure, but the IJ gave him only a thirty-day period in which to depart, not the maximum si xty-day period. He was ordered to post a $500 bond and to depart by February 4, 2011 , with an alternate order of removal to

Mexico. Mr. Meza-Rios filed an appeal with th e Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that he should ha ve been granted sixty days in which to voluntarily leave the United States. On January 31, 2013, the BIA dismissed his ap peal for lack of jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(g), whic h states: “No appeal shall lie regarding the length of a period of volunt ary departure (as distinguish ed from issues of whether to grant voluntary departure).” In a footnote, the BIA noted that even if the appeal had not been foreclosed by re gulation, Mr. Meza-Rios had fa iled to provide proof to the BIA that he had paid the voluntary departure bond. In his emergency motion for stay of removal, Mr. Meza-Rios argues that he timely paid the voluntary departure bond, but his former counsel improperly failed to provide the receipt to the BIA. He asserts that he intends to file a motion to reopen

with the BIA to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. But he does not establish our jurisdiction over the current petit ion for review or our authority to order a stay of removal under the ci rcumstances of this case.- 3 - We conclude that we are not authorized to enter a stay of removal. The plain language of the voluntary departure statut e provides that “[n] o court shall have jurisdiction over an appeal from denial of a request for an order of voluntary departure under subsection (b) of this section, nor shall any court order a stay of an alien’s removal pending consideration of any claim with respect to voluntary departure .” 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) (emphasis added). We also conclude that we lack jurisd iction over this petition for review. The jurisdictional statute provides: “Notwithst anding any other provis ion of law . . ., no court shall have jurisdiction to review—(i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229c [voluntary depart ure] . . . .” 8 U.S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). Moreover, Mr. Meza-Rios concedes in hi s motion for stay th at the BIA lacked jurisdiction over the only issue he raised in his administrative appeal , so his appeal is moot. Finally, Mr. Meza-Rios did not assert or preserve any challenges to the order

of removal over which we w ould have jurisdiction. See id. § 1252(a)(1). The emergency motion for stay of re moval is denied and the petition for

review is dismissed.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam