Case ID: f-appx_615/html/0881-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SHUIYUE JIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72736.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 2, 2015.
    Nathan Wei, Strassburg Gilmore & Wei, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    Mona Maria Yousif, Trial, Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA for Respondent.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shuiyue Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal 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. Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Jin’s motion to reopen, where the evidence does not compel the finding that she established exceptional circumstances for her failure to appear. See 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i); Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 892 (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whethdr exceptional circumstances were present); Limsico v. INS, 951 F.2d 210, 214 (9th Cir.1991) (agency has authority to evaluate contrary evidence).

Because this determination is disposi-tive, we need not reach Jin’s contentions regarding whether her illness was sufficiently serious to constitute exceptional circumstances.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).