Case ID: f-appx_342/html/0323-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fuad Naser KHOURY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73549.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2009.
    
    Filed Aug. 13, 2009.
    Fuad Naser Khoury, La Palma, 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, Thomas Fatouros, Karen Y. Stewart, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fuad Naser Khoury, a citizen of Jordan, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 proceedings. See 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 Khoury’s motion to reopen because he failed to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances excused his failure to appear. See Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1204-06 (9th Cir.2003) (an alien’s mistaken belief regarding the time of her hearing did not constitute exceptional circumstances); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l) (defining exceptional circumstances as “circumstances beyond the control of the alien”).

Khoury’s remaining contention is not persuasive.

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