Case ID: f-appx_584/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Cesar FERNANDEZ-ZARATE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70273.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
    
    Filed July 15, 2014.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John J.W. Inkeles, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, 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 Cesar Fernandez-Zarate, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in ab-sentía. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Fernandez-Zarate does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determinations that his failure to appear at his hearing was not due to a lack of notice, and that, under Singh-Bhathal v. INS, 170 F.3d 943 (9th Cir.1999), the misadvice from a non-attorney regarding the importance of Fernandez-Zarate’s appearance at his March 2006 hearing did not constitute an exceptional circumstance. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Fernandez-Zarate’s remaining contentions regarding equitable tolling and compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Mendez-Alcaraz v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 842, 844 (9th Cir.2006) (declining to reach nondispositive challenges to a BIA order).

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