Akosua Amponsaah Freckleton 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AKOSUA AMPONSAAH
FRECKLETON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70161
Agency No. A023-430-758
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Akosua Amponsaah Freckleton, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reopen removal
FILED
JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70161 2
proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See Singh v.
INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Freckleton’s motion to
reopen because Freckleton’s mistaken belief that her hearing was scheduled several
hours later does not constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1). See Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1206 (9th Cir.
2003) (per curiam). Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in concluding that
Freckleton failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel by her former
counsel resulting in an exceptional circumstance. See id. Petitioner’s contention
that the BIA failed to consider the evidence is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --