Narrative Opinion Summary
Andres Vasquez-Plaza, a Mexican national, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews the case for abuse of discretion. The petition is denied. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because Vasquez-Plaza overstayed his voluntary departure period, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d). The BIA properly notified him of the consequences of failing to depart within the designated timeframe. Other arguments presented by Vasquez-Plaza were found to lack merit. The decision is not published and cannot be cited in court except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision for abuse of discretion under its jurisdiction granted by this statute.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews the case for abuse of discretion.
Motion to Reopen Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counselsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner's motion to reopen was denied due to the failure to comply with voluntary departure requirements, which undermined the claim of ineffective assistance.
Reasoning: The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because Vasquez-Plaza overstayed his voluntary departure period, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d).
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case is not published and is subject to specific rules regarding its citation in court.
Reasoning: The decision is not published and cannot be cited in court except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Voluntary Departure and Consequences of Overstayingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Board of Immigration Appeals properly notified the petitioner of the consequences of failing to depart within the designated timeframe, impacting the decision to deny reopening.
Reasoning: The BIA properly notified him of the consequences of failing to depart within the designated timeframe.