Case Name: Jose Rodrigo GARCIA-PARAMO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-17
Citations: 136 F. App'x 75
Docket Number: No. 03-72655; Agency No. A76-611-030
Parties: Jose Rodrigo GARCIA-PARAMO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 75–76

Head Matter:
Jose Rodrigo GARCIA-PARAMO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-72655.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2005.
Decided June 17, 2005.
Jose Rodrigo Garda-Paramo, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer A. Parker, Anthony W. Norwood, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suit able for decision, without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Rodrigo Garcia-Paramo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000), we deny the petition for review.
Garcia-Paramo's 30-day voluntary departure period expired before the motion to reopen was filed to notify the BIA of his new evidence. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia-Paramo's motion in these circumstances, as he had become statutorily ineligible for the relief sought. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d); de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 764 (9th Cir.2004).
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.