Case Name: Efrain Leon MARTINEZ; Patricia Leon, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-06
Citations: 408 F. App'x 20
Docket Number: No. 06-74941
Parties: Efrain Leon MARTINEZ; Patricia Leon, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 20–21

Head Matter:
Efrain Leon MARTINEZ; Patricia Leon, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74941.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
Filed Jan. 6, 2011.
Raul Ernesto Godinez, Esquire, Law Office of Raul E. Godinez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Song Park, OIL, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, 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. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, 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
Efrain Leon Martinez and Patricia Leon, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' April 26, 2006, motion to reopen on the ground that petitioners were statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because they overstayed their voluntary departure period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d). We do not consider petitioners' contentions regarding prejudice stemming from alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners' ineligibility for cancellation based on their failure to depart is dispositive.
Petitioners' pending motion for a stay of the voluntary departure period is denied. See Garda v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (9th Cir.2004) (order) (court lacks jurisdiction to grant a voluntary departure stay where the request is filed after expiration of the voluntary departure period).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.