
    Olivia VARGAS-VILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-74024.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Sept. 27, 2013.
    Mike Singh Sethi, Esquire, Orange, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial, Oil, Timothy Bo Stanton, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Olivia Vargas-Villa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 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) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Vargas-Villa’s motion to reopen due to her lack of prima facie eligibility for relief from removal because her failure to depart the United States in accordance with her grant of voluntary departure rendered her statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(l); see also Granados-Oseguera, 546 F.3d at 1015 (“[Where the] motion to reopen was filed after the period for voluntary departure had elapsed ... the BIA was not simply correct to deny the motion; it was compelled to do so by the operation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(l).”). Our case law forecloses Vargas-Villa’s contention that her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel surmounts the voluntary departure bar. See id. at 1016 (“Even assuming ... ineffective assistance of counsel, the statutory bars on relief would nonetheless control.... ”).

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