Case ID: f-appx_101/html/0238-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pablo GARAYAR-GALLEGOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71543.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2004.
    
    Decided June 15, 2004.
    Gabriela-Kreutzer, Esq., Olympic Law Center, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los. Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Attorney, Margaret Perry, Esq., AnhThu P. Mai, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT, RYMER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, the proper respondent in this case is the Attorney General.
    
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying both INA § 242B (c)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 3.23(b)(3). The “new facts” requirement in § 3.23(b)(3) applies to all motions to reopen, whereas the “exceptional circumstances” requirement in § 242B(c)(3) specifically applies to orders entered in absentia. The IJ properly and comprehensively applied both the general and the specific standards.

Garayar-Gallegos’s argument that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ decision without opinion is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir.2003).

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.