Alfaro v. US Atty Gen.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DEC 02, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-12208
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A094-798-783
VILMA ARELY ANDRADE-DE ALFARO,
lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(December 2, 2010)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Vilma Arely Andrade-De Alfaro, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

-- 1 of 3 --

petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that
affirmed the denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. We deny the
petition.
On February 17, 2009, the immigration judge notified De Alfaro that her
removal hearing would be held on March 19, 2009. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). De
Alfaro moved for a continuance on the ground that her attorney had a conflict in
his schedule, but the immigration judge did not rule on De Alfaro’s motion before
the hearing. De Alfaro did not appear for her removal hearing, and the
immigration judge denied De Alfaro’s motion to continue and ordered her
removed from the United States in absentia, id. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). De Alfaro
moved to reopen her removal proceedings, but the immigration judge denied the
motion. The Board found “appropriate” the decisions of the immigration judge to
deny De Alfaro’s motion for a continuance and to order her removed in absentia.
The Board did not abuse its discretion by affirming the denial of De
Alfaro’s motion to reopen her removal hearing. De Alfaro’s failure to appear at
her removal hearing was not attributable to exceptional circumstances beyond her
control. See id. §§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(1). De Alfaro received notice of her
removal hearing and, although her attorney could not attend because of a conflict,
De Alfaro does not assert that she could not appear at the hearing. De Alfaro
2

-- 2 of 3 --

argues that she failed to attend at “the instruction of the staff of her attorney,” but
she does not argue that conduct amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. See
Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1274–75 (11th Cir. 2005). De Alfaro
failed to present evidence of circumstances so compelling that she would be
entitled to reopen her removal proceedings.
We DENY De Alfaro’s petition.
3

-- 3 of 3 --