ARTEMIO MENDEZ-LOPEZ and OTILIA MARTINEZ-GEMINIANO 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARTEMIO MENDEZ-LOPEZ and
OTILIA MARTINEZ-GEMINIANO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 08-74326
10-73039
Agency Nos. A098-463-667
A098-463-668
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Artemio Mendez-Lopez and Otilia Martinez-Geminiano, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
orders denying their motions to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
MAR 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74326 2
§ 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 petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely
motions to reopen where petitioners 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); Granados-Oseguera, 546 F.3d at 1016
(statutory bar to relief resulting from failure to voluntarily depart is not subject to
an exception in cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --