VALENTIN MARTINEZ-OCAMPO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 13-72753 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALENTIN MARTINEZ-OCAMPO; MARIA RIOS-REYNOSO, No. 13-72753 Agency Nos. Petitioners, v. A095-310-255 A095-310-256 MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. Smith, Circuit Judges. Valentin Martinez-Ocampo and Maria Rios-Reynoso, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to * 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). reopen. Granados-Oseguera v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011, 1014 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen where they failed to file it prior to the expiration of the voluntary departure period, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(e)(1), and thus were statutorily ineligible for the relief requested, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1)(B) (imposing a ten-year bar to certain forms of relief, including cancellation of removal, for persons who fail to depart within the specified time period); see Granados-Oseguera, 546 F.3d at 1015-16 (BIA is compelled to deny a motion to reopen based on a movant’s failure to depart where ten-year bar applies to the requested relief). We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA’s decision conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-72753

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.