Case ID: f-appx_302/html/0628-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Manuel Alberto PALOMARES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74900.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
    Gary Royle, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Robert Raymond, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District, I & AMP; NS, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Alberto Palomares, 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 absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly concluded that Palomares did not present sufficient evidence to establish that his failure to appear at his removal hearing was due to exceptional circumstances. The agency’s denial of Palomares’ motion to reopen was therefore not “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.” Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002).

Palomares’ contention that he was denied due process because he was ordered removed in absentia lacks merit, see Singh-Bhathal v. INS, 170 F.3d 943, 946-47 (9th Cir.1999), as do his remaining contentions.

Palomares’ counsel is cautioned that his opening brief does not meet this court’s standards. See generally Fed. R.App. P. 28; 9th Cir. R. 28-2.

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