Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0440-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Margarita Yamileth RIVAS-PORTILLO, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 16-60553 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed November 1, 2017
    
      Randy Olen, Esq., Olen Law Offices, Providence, RI, for Petitioner
    Rachel Louise Browning, Rosanne M. Perry, Trial Attorneys, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before BARKSDALE, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Margarita Yamileth Rivas-Portillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the denial of her motion to reopen her in absentia removal proceedings, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. She claims the Board,of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred by affirming the denial of her motion.

An alien may be ordered removed in absentia if she fails to appear for her scheduled hearing after receipt of proper notice, and if the Government establishes she is removable. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). An in absentia removal order may be rescinded upon a motion to reopen if the alien demonstrates the failure to appear was because of “exceptional circumstances”. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i).

There was no abuse of discretion in denying Rivas’ motion to reopen. Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014). Rivas’ mistaken belief her hearing would be transferred and rescheduled is not an exceptional circumstance justifying the reopening of her proceedings. De Morales v. INS, 116 F.3d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 1997). Additionally, the BIA’s order “reflect[s] meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s claims”. Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996).

DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.