Vasquez-Plaza v. Ashcroft
This text of 114 F. App'x 881 (Vasquez-Plaza 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
Andres Vasquez-Plaza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Plaza’s motion to reopen because he overstayed his period of voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d); de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 763-64 (9th Cir.2004).
Contrary to Vasquez-Plaza’s contention, the BIA gave him adequate notice of the consequences for failing to voluntarily depart within the specified time period. See id at 762.
Vasquez-Plaza’s remaining contentions also lack merit.
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 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasquez-plaza-v-ashcroft-ca9-2004.