Hua Tang v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUA TANG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72231
Agency No. A087-841-021
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Hua Tang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-72231
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Tang’s motion to reopen,
where Tang did not 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); Celis-Castellano
v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 892 (9th Cir. 2002) (applying a totality of the
circumstances test to determine whether exceptional circumstances were present).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Tang’s unexhausted contentions regarding
fairness and judicial economy. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.
2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an
alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency).
We do not consider the extra-record evidence submitted for the first time
with Tang’s opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial review is
limited to the administrative record); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir.
2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --