Case ID: f-appx_366/html/0846-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Antonio RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-75034.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
    Antonio R. Salazar, Esquire, Salazar Law Office, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Brooke Maurer, Trial, OIL, Allen Warren Hausman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Antonio Rodriguez-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order 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. Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Martinez’s motion to reopen because Rodriguez-Martinez’s mistaken belief that his hearing was one week later does not constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l) and his only possibility of relief is a discretionary grant of cancellation of removal. See Valencias-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1206 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (no showing of exceptional circumstance and only possibility of relief was discretionary grant of voluntary departure).

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