Jose Antonio Rios Avalos v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANTONIO RIOS AVALOS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1170
Agency No. A206-265-948
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 9, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit
Judges.
Jose Antonio Rios Avalos, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of
his motion to reopen his removal proceedings to seek cancellation of removal.
* 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).
FILED
MAY 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviewing the denial of a motion
to reopen for abuse of discretion, Perez-Portillo v. Garland, 56 F.4th 788, 792 (9th
Cir. 2022), we deny Rios’s petition.
The Board did not abuse its discretion by denying Rios’s motion. Because
Rios failed to depart the United States on or before April 9, 2016, in accordance
with his sixty-day grant of voluntary departure, he became statutorily ineligible for
cancellation of removal for ten years, or until April 9, 2026. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229c(d)(1) (if a noncitizen “permitted to depart voluntarily . . . fails to depart
the United States within the time period specified,” they “shall be ineligible, for a
period of 10 years, to receive” cancellation of removal); Dada v. Mukasey, 554
U.S. 1, 10 (2008) (“The voluntary departure period in no event may exceed 60 . . .
days . . . .”); Granados-Oseguera v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008)
(“[A]fter the period for voluntary departure ha[s] elapsed[,] . . . the [Board is] not
simply correct to deny the motion; it [is] compelled to do so by the operation of 8
U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1) . . . .”).
We need not address Rios’s remaining contentions. Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts . . . are not required to
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they
reach.” (quoting INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam))).
***

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PETITION DENIED.1
1 Rios’s motion to supplement the record (Doc. 8) is denied.

-- 3 of 3 --