Monfil v. Ashcroft
This text of 114 F. App'x 923 (Monfil v. Ashcroft) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Alfredo Santos Monfil, his wife Aracely Santos Quintero, and their children Eliva Quintero Garcia and Jose Luis Santos Quintero, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition for review.
The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen because petitioners failed to depart within the voluntary departure period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d) (explaining that the failure to depart voluntarily within the specified time period results in a ten-year bar to certain forms of relief); de Martinez, 374 F.3d at 762-64.
We do not consider petitioners’ contentions regarding their eligibility for suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal because their failure to depart within the voluntary departure period precluded relief. See de Martinez, 374 F.3d at 762-64; Shaar v. INS, 141 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir.1998).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
114 F. App'x 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monfil-v-ashcroft-ca9-2004.