Rosa Lidia Cordova Espinoza v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA LIDIA CORDOVA ESPINOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71496
Agency No. A208-887-777
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Rosa Lidia Cordova Espinoza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming without opinion
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reopen removal
proceedings conducted 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, and we
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-71496
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Cordova Espinoza’s
motion to reopen for failure to establish exceptional circumstances, where her only
explanation for her failure to appear is that she was unable to find the courthouse,
despite having the correct address. See 8 C.F.R. §1003.23(b)(4)(ii); 8 U.S.C.
§1229a(e)(1) (defining exceptional circumstances as circumstances beyond the
control of the alien); see also Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06
(9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner’s confusion regarding the time of her hearing was not an
exceptional circumstance).
To the extent Cordova Espinoza contends the IJ erred in finding the
immigration court is “steps away” from the Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”) building which Cordova Espinoza claims to have mistaken for the court,
or in finding that the DHS building was “not permanently closed”, the record does
not support these contentions. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th
Cir. 2010).
To the extent Cordova Espinoza now contends that she did not fail to appear
for her hearing, we lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. See
Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (no jurisdiction to review

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-71496
legal claims not presented in the petitioner’s administrative proceedings before the
BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --