FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 10 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VALENTIN MARTINEZ OCAMPO; No. 18-71457
MARIA RIOS REYNOSO,
Agency Nos. A095-310-255
Petitioners, A095-310-256
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 8, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Valentin Martinez Ocampo and Maria Rios Reynoso petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order denying their motion
*
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).
to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
deny the petition for review.
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to
reopen for further consideration of their application for cancellation of removal.
See Cuenca v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2020) ("we review the BIA’s
denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion"). Petitioners were granted
voluntary departure in 2013, but did not depart. Accordingly, they are ineligible
for cancellation of removal until 2023. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1)(B) (stating that
an alien granted voluntary departure, who fails to voluntarily depart, "shall be
ineligible, for a period of 10 years, to receive any further relief," including
cancellation of removal).
2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to
reopen to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Petitioners did not submit the required application
for relief with their motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to
reopen proceedings for the purpose of submitting an application for relief must be
accompanied by the appropriate application for relief and all supporting
documentation.”). Petitioners do not contest that this was a valid reason to deny
reopening here.
PETITION DENIED.
2