Case ID: f-appx_271/html/0665-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oscar Luis BETTRAN-RIVERA, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74503.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2008 .
    Filed March 26, 2008.
    Oscar Luis Bettran-Rivera, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael P. Lindemann, Esq., Ethan B. Kanter, Esq. Fax, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Luis Bettran-Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Bettran-Rivera’s contention, the IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to reopen for failure to establish “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l) (“exceptional circumstances” include those beyond the alien’s control, such as the serious illness of the alien, or the death or serious illness of an immediate relative, but not less compelling circumstances).

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