Jun Cui v. Jefferson Sessions

Ninth Circuit

Jun Cui v. Jefferson Sessions

687 F. App'x 578

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 2017

Docket15-72905

StatusUnpublished

This text of 687 F. App'x 578 (Jun Cui v. Jefferson Sessions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jun Cui v. Jefferson Sessions, 687 F. App'x 578 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 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)(l)(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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

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 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)(l)(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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 F. App'x 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jun-cui-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack