Case ID: f-appx_92/html/0558-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fuad Jama MOHAMMED, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72111.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2004.
    
    Decided March 31, 2004.
    Jonathan D. Montag, Esq., Law Offices of Jonathan D. Montag, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Executive Office of Immigration Review, Office of Immigration Judge, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., Jennifer L. Lightbody, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fuad Jama Mohammed, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming without opinion an Immigration Judge’s denial of his motion to reopen an in absentia removal proceeding. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890-91 (9th Cir.2002), and we grant the petition.

An order of removal entered in absentia may be rescinded if the petitioner demonstrates that he failed to appear because of exceptional circumstances. See id. Mohammed has shown exceptional circumstances for his failure to appear. The matter is therefore remanded for hearing on the merits.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       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.