Huirong Cheng v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUIRONG CHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72890
Agency No. A097-881-475
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 4, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS, BEA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Huirong Cheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in
absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
APR 07 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 --

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773
(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Cheng’s motion to reopen
on the ground that his mistake concerning the time of his hearing did not constitute
exceptional circumstances beyond his control that would excuse his failure to
appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C), (e)(1); Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d
1204, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 2003); cf. Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.
2002). As in Valencia-Fragoso, Cheng failed to appear because he misrecollected
the time of his hearing. 321 F.3d at 1205–06. Unlike in Singh, Cheng was not, at
the time of his hearing, the beneficiary of an approved visa petition. Id; Singh, 295
F.3d at 1040. Thus, the disposition of this case is controlled by Valencia-Fragoso.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --