Case Name: Epigmenio MONTES-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-06
Citations: 435 F. App'x 696
Docket Number: No. 08-73470
Parties: Epigmenio MONTES-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 696–697

Head Matter:
Epigmenio MONTES-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73470.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 6, 2011.
Ruben Neshan Sarkisian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
Sunah Lee, Trial, Michelle Gorden Lab-our, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Epigmenio Montes-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Granados-Oseguera v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011, 1014 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Montes-Lopez's motion to reopen where Montes-Lopez failed to depart the United States by his voluntary departure deadline, and was therefore statutorily ineligible for the relief requested. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1); Granados-Oseguera, 546 F.3d at 1016 (statutory bar on relief resulting from failure to voluntarily depart is not subject to an exception in cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel).
In light of our disposition, we need not address Montes-Lopez's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.