Simarjit Kaur 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SIMARJIT KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73174
Agency No. A095-588-133
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Simarjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73174 2
review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen, Celis-
Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s motion to reopen
for failure to establish exceptional circumstances beyond her control that would
excuse her failure to appear for her removal hearing. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(1); Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 892.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Kaur’s remaining contentions regarding her
removability, her motion to change venue, or the sufficiency of the government’s
evidence of fraud, as these contentions were not exhausted before the agency. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --