Mulyadi Chandra 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MULYADI CHANDRA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72229
Agency No. A096-362-472
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.
Mulyadi Chandra, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
FILED
JUN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72229 2
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 de novo
questions of law, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Chandra’s motion to reopen
because the evidence was insufficient to establish “exceptional circumstances”
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1), Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 892 (9th
Cir. 2002) (agency properly denied motion to reopen supported only by alien’s
declaration that he suffered an asthma attack and hospital form did not indicate
severity of illness), and because Chandra was not represented by counsel at the
time that his hearing notices were issued.
We lack jurisdiction to address Chandra’s contention that his proceedings
warrant reopening based on a meritorious asylum claim because he failed to raise it
before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --