
    Seyran ALEKSANYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72792.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007 .
    Filed Aug. 22, 2007.
    David L. Ross, Esq., Ross, Rose & Hammill, LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Carla A. Ford, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See- Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Seyran Aleksanyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings to apply for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for 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 when it determined that Aleksanyan’s failure to abide by the BIA’s voluntary departure order precluded him from establishing prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d); de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 763-64 (9th Cir.2004) (failure to depart pursuant to voluntary departure order precludes showing of prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status). The BIA correctly determined that Aleksanyan did not present any evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel that explains his failure to depart voluntarily.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying order dismissing Aleksanyan’s asylum claim because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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