Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0361-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ana GONZALEZ-CRUZ, aka Adelfa Cruz, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71776.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Jan. 27, 2016.
    Fabian C. Serrato, Serrato Law Firm, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner
    OIL, Aric Allan Anderson, Trial, 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: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ana Gonzalez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 ab-sentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonzalez-Cruz’s motion to reopen. Gonzalez-Cruz was personally served with the hearing notice for her July 10, 2012, hearing, and failed to show that exceptional circumstances caused her to miss her July 10, 2012, hearing, where the declaration accompanying her motion to reopen asserts that an officer from the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program informed her that her June 2012 hearing was cancelled. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir.2004) (actual notice is sufficient to meet due process requirements); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l) (defining the term “exceptional circumstances”).

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