Case ID: f-appx_292/html/0591-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kristina VAIDOTAITE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71729.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 8, 2008.
    Cheri Attix, Esq., Law Office of Cheri Attix, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard L. Pomeroy, Esq., USAK-Office of the U.S. Attorney Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse, Anchorage, AK, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kristina Vaidotaite, a native and citizen of Lithuania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen, Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vaidotaite’s motion to reopen because she was aware that the address on her asylum application did not belong to her. See Singh-Bhathal v. INS, 170 F.3d 943, 946-47 (9th Cir.1999) (reliance on advice of non-attorney immigration consultant insufficient to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” necessary to reopen in absentia proceedings).

Vaidotaite’s contention that the agency failed to consider the positive equities in her case is unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.