Alejandro Reyes-Arguelles v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

12-72883Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit20 dic 2013

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO REYES-ARGUELLES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72883
Agency No. A091-720-711
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Reyes-Arguelles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
DEC 20 2013
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 --

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo
constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Reyes-Arguelles’ motion to
reopen where notice was proper, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), and where
Reyes-Arguelles failed to establish that exceptional circumstances excused his
failure to appear at his hearing, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1) (defining exceptional
circumstances as circumstances beyond the control of the alien); Valencia-Fragoso
v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (finding no
exceptional circumstances where petitioner misunderstood the time of her hearing).
It follows that the IJ did not violate Reyes-Arguelles’ due process rights by
denying the motion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-72883 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.