Case ID: f-appx_85/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luz Villagomez de JESUS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72481.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 12, 2004.
    
    Decided Jan. 15, 2004.
    Claro L. Mamaril, Mamaril & Mamaril, Vallejo, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Allen W. Hausman, Attorney, Papú Sandhu, Greg D. Mack, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before BEEZER, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luz Villagomez de Jesus, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of her motion to reopen deportation proceedings and rescind her in absentia deportation order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review for abuse of discretion, see Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition.

Petitioner contends that exceptional circumstances prevented her from attending her deportation hearing. This contention lacks merit because the news of her father’s declining health and her financial difficulties do not constitute “exceptional circumstances.” See Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring an examination of the particularized facts and the totality of the circumstances presented in each case).

Petitioner’s contention that the IJ applied the wrong version of the statute defining “exceptional circumstances” lacks merit because the transitional rules applied to petitioner’s case. See Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 597 (9th Cir.2002) (transitional rules apply if deportation proceedings commenced prior to April 1, 1997).

Petitioner’s contention that the BIA’s opinion insufficiently articulated its reasons for denying relief is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848-49 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.