CRISPIN ROJAS and MA DE LOURDES ROJAS 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 Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior United States District Judge
for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISPIN ROJAS and MA DE LOURDES
ROJAS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75168
Agency Nos. A095-576-451
A095-576-452
MEMORANDUM*
and ORDER
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 25, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District
Judge.**
Crispin Rojas and Ma De Lourdes Rojas, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying
FILED
DEC 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the
denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft,
298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 2002). Questions of law are reviewed de novo.
Granados-Oseguera v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011, 1014 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. Even
with the benefit of the 60-day departure period, Petitioners were statutorily ineligible
for relief because they failed to depart the United States before their voluntary
departure period expired. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1); see Granados-Oseguera, 546 F.3d
at 1016 (holding that the statutory bar on relief precluded the petitioner from relying
on ineffective assistance of counsel as an “exceptional circumstance” excusing a
failure to depart within the required time).
Petitioners’ prior petition cannot be considered a request for a stay. See Garcia
v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2004) (order) (“Unlike a motion for stay
of removal, a petition for review is not similar to a motion for stay of voluntary
departure, nor are the standards governing the two requests for relief.”). While we
must afford pro se alien submissions a liberal construction, Sembiring v. Gonzales,
499 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2007), a petitioner must give us something to liberally
construe in the first instance. Petitioners failed to do so. Moreover, there is no
automatic stay of voluntary departure while an alien pursues a petition for review

-- 2 of 3 --

1 Petitioners’ motion for judicial notice is granted.
3
before this court. Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 746 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing
Zazueta-Carrillo v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2003)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.1

-- 3 of 3 --