
    JUN CUI, AKA Jun Cui Riih, AKA Jun Cui Semen, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72905
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 18, 2017
    Samuel Insoo Mok, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Samuel I. Mok, Saipan, MP, for Petitioner
    Rosanne Perry, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jun Cui, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Granados-Oseguera v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011, 1014 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cui’s motion to reopen, where she failed to depart the United States during her voluntary departure period and was therefore statutorily ineligible for the relief requested. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(l)(B) (imposing a ten-year bar to certain forms of relief, including adjustment of status, for aliens who fail to depart within the time period specified); Granados-Oseguera, 546 F.3d at 1015-16 (when a petitioner files a motion to reopen after the expiration of the voluntary departure period, the BIA is compelled to deny the motion based on the petitioner’s failure to depart where the ten-year bar applies to the relief sought).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Cui’s challenge to the BIA’s March 9, 2015, dismissal of her appeal because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     