NORMA CRISTINA CAL and ROELI GALINDO CAL CARRETO v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMA CRISTINA CAL and ROELI
GALINDO CAL CARRETO,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70045
Agency Nos. A205-553-767
A205-553-768
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Norma Cristina Cal and Roeli Galindo Cal Carreto, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their motion
to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed
FILED
APR 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen, where petitioners did not establish that exceptional circumstances excused
their failure to appear at their hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1) (defining
exceptional circumstances as circumstances beyond the control of the alien,
including battery, extreme cruelty, death, or serious illness of the alien or their
immediate relatives, but not less compelling circumstances).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ March 8, 2016, request for
prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.
2012) (order).
To the extent petitioners contend they are eligible for relief, we need not
reach this remaining contention in light of our disposition.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
15-70045 2

-- 2 of 2 --