Olivia Vargas-Villa 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
OLIVIA VARGAS-VILLA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-74024
Agency No. A092-880-579
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Olivia Vargas-Villa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen, Granados-Oseguera v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011,
FILED
SEP 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-74024 2
1014 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review. The
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Vargas-Villa’s motion to
reopen due to her lack of prima facie eligibility for relief from removal because her
failure to depart the United States in accordance with her grant of voluntary
departure rendered her statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and
adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1); see also Granados-Oseguera,
546 F.3d at 1015 (“[Where the] motion to reopen was filed after the period for
voluntary departure had elapsed . . . the BIA was not simply correct to deny the
motion; it was compelled to do so by the operation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1).”).
Our case law forecloses Vargas-Villa’s contention that her claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel surmounts the voluntary departure bar. See id. at 1016
(“Even assuming . . . ineffective assistance of counsel, the statutory bars on relief
would nonetheless control . . . .”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --