Case Name: Youssef Salman SALEH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-23
Citations: 229 F. App'x 460
Docket Number: No. 05-76271
Parties: Youssef Salman SALEH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 460–461

Head Matter:
Youssef Salman SALEH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76271.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 23, 2007.
David B. Gardner, Esq., Law Offices of David B. Gardner, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jonathan F. Potter, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Youssef Salman Saleh, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from the Immi gration Judge's order denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, see Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening where Saleh received notice of the penalties for failure to depart voluntarily, and he did not file his motion to reopen within the time period for voluntary departure. See Gonzalez de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 762-63 (9th Cir.2004).
Saleh's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.