Case Name: Luzbina HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-22
Citations: 329 F. App'x 159
Docket Number: No. 06-71839
Parties: Luzbina HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 159–159

Head Matter:
Luzbina HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71839.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 22, 2009.
Luzbina Hernandez, Sun Valley, CA, pro se.
Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luzbina Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez's motion to reopen because her failure to file the motion to reopen before the expiration of her voluntary departure period rendered her statutorily ineligible for the relief she sought. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d); De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 763 (9th Cir.2004).
We do not reach Hernandez's contention that her former counsel provided her ineffective assistance by requesting voluntary departure as she did not exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.