Case ID: f-appx_445/html/0009-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eulalio TORRES-RESENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70076.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 21, 2011.
    
      Jorge Teodoro Cabrera, I, Esquire, Law Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Eulalio Torres-Resendez, Big Bear Lake, CA, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, David H. Wet-more, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eulalio Torres-Resendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres-Resendez’s motion to reopen on the ground that the presented medical documentation was insufficient to establish Torres-Resendez had a “reasonable cause” for failing to attend his hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1982), Matter of Haim, 19 I. & N. Dec. 641, 642 (BIA 1988) (alien must demonstrate through affidavits or other evidentiary material he had a “reasonable cause” for failing to appear).

Torres-Resendez’s remaining contentions are 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.