Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0609-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mulyadi CHANDRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72229.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 8, 2010.
    Kathleen Siok-Sien Koh, Esquire, Law Office of Kathleen S. Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.
    Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, Oil, Shahrzad Baghai, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mulyadi Chandra, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo questions of law, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Chandra’s motion to reopen because the evidence was insufficient to establish “exceptional circumstances” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1), Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 892 (9th Cir.2002) (agency properly denied motion to reopen supported only by alien’s declaration that he suffered an asthma attack and hospital form did not indicate severity of illness), and because Chandra was not represented by counsel at the time that his hearing notices were issued.

We lack jurisdiction to address Chandra’s contention that his proceedings warrant reopening based on a meritorious asylum claim because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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