Case Name: Gelacio Delores PANZO, aka Gelasio Dolores Panzo, aka Geracio Panzo, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-15
Citations: 624 F. App'x 569
Docket Number: No. 14-71976
Parties: Gelacio Delores PANZO, aka Gelasio Dolores Panzo, aka Geracio Panzo, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 569–569

Head Matter:
Gelacio Delores PANZO, aka Gelasio Dolores Panzo, aka Geracio Panzo, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-71976.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
Filed Dec. 15, 2015.
Kaveh Ardalan, Law Office of Kaveh Ardalan, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
Alexander Jacob Lutz, Deitz P. Lefort, Trial, Oil, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, 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: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, 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
Gelacio Delores Panzo, 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 request for voluntary departure. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary denial of Panzo's application for voluntary departure where Panzo presents no question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir.2011) (overruled on other grounds by Moncrieffe v. Holder, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013)) (this court has no jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of voluntary departure, but retains jurisdiction to review questions of law or constitutional challenges to denials of such relief); see also Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d .1174, 1176-77 (9th Cir.2013) (same).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.