
    Carlos ACUNA; Maria Del Socorro Villarreal, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75878.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 13, 2010.
    Sean Olender, Olender Law Office, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, S. Nicole Nardone, Esq., Barry J. Pettinato, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Acuna and Maria Del Socorro Villarreal, husband and wife, and 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly denied petitioners’ motion to reopen because their failure to file their motion to reopen before the voluntary departure period expired rendered them statutorily ineligible for the relief they sought. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229e(d)(l) (imposing a ten-year bar to certain forms of relief, including cancellation of removal, for aliens who fail to depart within the time period specified); De Martinez, 374 F.3d at 763-64.

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the administrative record indicates that they received written warning of the consequences of failing to voluntarily depart in the BIA’s April 5, 2005, decision dismissing their appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions lack merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     