Case ID: f-appx_703/html/0531-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carmelino Sebastian JUAN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70497
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 20, 2017
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Janice Kay Redfern, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carmelino Sebastian Juan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 absentia. 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). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Sebastian Juan’s motion to reopen for failure to establish exceptional circumstances, where Sebastian Juan did not establish that he failed to appear at his 2013 hearing due to circumstances beyond his control. See 8 C.F.R. § 100858(b)(4)(H); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l) (defining exceptional circumstances as circumstances beyond the control of the alien); cf. Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2003) (no exceptional circumstances where petitioner was late to her hearing ¿ue to confusion about the time).

PETITI0N P0E KEVIEW DENIED- 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.