Justo Pedro Ajche; Maria Angelica Ajche v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUSTO PEDRO AJCHE; MARIA
ANGELICA AJCHE,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70142
Agency Nos. A088-102-847
A088-102-848
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Justo Pedro Ajche, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and Maria Angelica
Ajche, a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have
FILED
APR 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

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. Granados-Oseguera v.
Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011, 1014 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Ajches’ motion to
reopen where they failed to depart the United States during their voluntary
departure period, and were therefore statutorily ineligible for the relief requested.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1)(B) (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); Granados-Oseguera, 546 F.3d at 1015-16 (when a petitioner
files a motion to reopen after the expiration of the voluntary departure period, the
BIA may deny the petitioner’s motion to reopen based on the petitioner’s failure to
depart).
It follows that the BIA did not violate the Ajches’ due process rights by not
examining new evidence of hardship. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --