JUN CUI, AKA Jun Cui Riih, AKA Jun Cui Semen v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

15-72905Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit18 avr. 2017

Texte intégral

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUN CUI, AKA Jun Cui Riih, AKA Jun
Cui Semen,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72905
Agency No. A203-217-433
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jun Cui, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
APR 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

denial of a motion to reopen. Granados-Oseguera v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011,
1014 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cui’s motion to reopen,
where she failed to depart the United States during her voluntary departure period
and was 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
adjustment of status, 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 is compelled
to deny the motion based on the petitioner’s failure to depart where the ten-year bar
applies to the relief sought).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Cui’s challenge to the BIA’s March 9, 2015,
dismissal of her appeal because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
15-72905 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.