Bisi Akinsowon petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigra *640 tion Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen immigration proceedings. The BIA denied the motion to reopen on the ground that Akinsowon had overstayed her period of voluntary departure and therefore was statutorily ineligible for the relief sought. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Banda-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 387, 388 (5th Cir. 2006).

Akinsowon argues that her timely motion to reopen avoided imposition of the § 1229c(d)(l)(B) bar to eligibility for adjustment of status. She further argues that her statutory right to adjustment and the merit of her adjustment application trumps the § 1229c(d)(l)(B) bar. Akinsowon’s argument is without merit. See Dada v. Mukasey, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2307, 2318-19, 171 L.Ed.2d 178 (2008). 1 In this matter, Akinsowon became ineligible to adjust her status because she failed to depart the United States within the 60-day voluntary departure period, which expired while her motion to reopen was pending. See § 1229c(d)(B). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to reopen. See Banda-Ortiz, 445 F.3d at 391; § 1229e(d)(B).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.