Texte intégral
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RUBEN URIBE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71871
Agency No. A072-521-196
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Uribe, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decisions denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia and denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
08-71871 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516
F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008), we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Uribe’s motion to reopen
because he was properly served with a notice to appear, advising him of the
consequence of failing to appear at a removal hearing, and a notice of hearing,
advising him of the time and location of his hearing, but instead relied on the
advice of his non-attorney immigration consultant and missed his scheduled
hearing. See Singh-Bhathal v. INS, 170 F.3d 943, 946-47 (9th Cir. 1999) (reliance
on advice of non-attorney immigration consultant insufficient to demonstrate
“exceptional circumstances” necessary to reopen in absentia proceedings).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Uribe’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s
September 11, 2007, decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --