Case ID: f-appx_417/html/0675-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maricela TORREZ-VALENZUELA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74797.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 2, 2011.
    Juan A. Laguna, Esquire, Law Offices of Juan A. Laguna, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Kathleen Kelly Volkert, Esquire, Mary Jane Candaux, Esquire, Rosanne Perry, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maricela Torrez-Valenzuela, 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 absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir.1996). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Torrez-Valenzuela’s motion to reopen because her reliance upon an outdated bus schedule does not constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l).

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