Sandra Bonilla-Jimenez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDRA BONILLA-JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71841
Agency No. A029-931-657
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Sandra Bonilla-Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings
conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646
F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Bonilla-Jimenez’s motion
to reopen, on the ground that her contention that she was confused about the time
of her hearing because she was upset over the death of her boyfriend’s father did
not demonstrate reasonable cause for her failure to appear for her hearing. See
Urbina-Osejo v. INS, 124 F.3d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir. 1997) (alien must show
“reasonable cause” for absence to reopen a deportation hearing held in absentia).
Bonilla-Jimenez’s contention that the agency failed to properly consider her
contentions is not supported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is merely that [the agency] consider[s]
the issues raised, and announce[s] its decision in terms sufficient to enable a
reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.”
(citations and quotation marks omitted)).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Bonilla-Jimenez’s contentions
regarding eligibility for relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th
Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-71841 2

-- 2 of 2 --