Case Name: Rosita Isela CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-06
Citations: 328 F. App'x 523
Docket Number: No. 06-75142
Parties: Rosita Isela CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
Rosita Isela CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75142.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 6, 2009.
Moisés Alcides Aviles, Aviles & Associates, San Bernardino, CA, for Petitioner.
Lyle Davis Jentzer, Esquire, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rosita Isela Castillo, a native and citizen of Belize, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the deni al of a motion to reopen, De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Castillo's motion to reopen because Castillo failed to depart within the voluntary departure period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d) (the failure to depart voluntarily within the time period results in a ten-year bar to certain forms of relief, including cancellation of removal); De Martinez, 374 F.3d at 762-64. Contrary to Castillo's contention, the BIA adequately explained its reason for denying the motion.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.