Case ID: f-appx_485/html/0877-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eduardo RAMOS-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73498.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
    James G. Roche, Esquire, Roche Law-firm LLC, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice Office of the Chief Counsel Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eduardo Ramos-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absen-tia. We have jurisdiction under to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir.2003), and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The agency does not appear to have made any findings of fact regarding Ramos-Martinez’s claim that he received erroneous information from his attorney’s office with respect to the hearing date. It instead concluded that Ramos-Martinez failed to establish “exceptional circumstances” for his absence at his hearing because he was personally served with notice of the hearing. This is not supported by our case law. See Lo, 341 F.3d at 936-39; see also Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 896-97 (9th Cir.2003), as amended on reh’g, 339 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir.2003) (failure to appear based on negligent advice of attorney’s agent constitutes an exceptional circumstance).

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