Acuna v. Holder
Summary of the case Acuna v. Holder
Carlos Acuna and Maria Del Socorro Villarreal, natives and citizens of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. The BIA denied the motion because the petitioners failed to file before the voluntary departure period expired, making them ineligible for relief. The court found that the petitioners had received written warning of the consequences of failing to voluntarily depart.
Key Issues of the case Acuna v. Holder
- Denial of motion to reopen removal proceedings
- Failure to file before voluntary departure period expired
Key Facts of the case Acuna v. Holder
- Petitioners are natives and citizens of Mexico
- Petitioners failed to file motion to reopen before voluntary departure period expired
Decision of the case Acuna v. Holder
Petition for review denied.
Opinions
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ACUNA; MARIA DEL No. 05-75878 SOCORRO VILLARREAL, Agency Nos. A078-654-689 Petitioners, A078-654-690
v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Acuna and Maria Del Socorro Villarreal, husband and wife, and
natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to
reopen for abuse of discretion. De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th
Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly denied petitioners’ motion to reopen because their failure
to file their motion to reopen before the voluntary departure period expired
rendered them statutorily ineligible for the relief they sought. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229c(d)(1) (imposing a ten-year bar to certain forms of relief, including
cancellation of removal, for aliens who fail to depart within the time period
specified); De Martinez, 374 F.3d at 763-64.
Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the administrative record indicates that
they received written warning of the consequences of failing to voluntarily depart
in the BIA’s April 5, 2005, decision dismissing their appeal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229c(d).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions lack merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 05-75878