Carlos Acuna; Maria Del Socorro Villarreal 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CARLOS ACUNA; MARIA DEL
SOCORRO VILLARREAL,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-75878
Agency Nos. A078-654-689
A078-654-690
MEMORANDUM *
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
FILED
APR 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

05-75878 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 of 2 --