Rufino Perez Roma v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NHY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUFINO PEREZ ROMA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70068
Agency No. A073-839-998
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Rufino Perez Roma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings held
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NHY/Research 07-70068 2
in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889,
894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Perez Roma failed to exhaust his contention that he did not appear at his
removal proceedings because of exceptional circumstances. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
To the extent Perez Roma challenges the BIA’s June 16, 2005, order
vacating its prior order and remanding the administrative record to the IJ, we lack
jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to the 2005 order. See
Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Perez Roma’s motion to
reopen because written notice of the hearing was mailed to the most recent address
provided by Perez Roma, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A), and he failed to present
any new evidence to demonstrate the requisite hardship, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(3) (providing that a motion to reopen “shall state the new facts that
will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be
supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --