Case ID: f-appx_142/html/0994-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Zoya Petrovna MILENTYEVA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-70947.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.
    
    Decided Sept. 15, 2005.
    Lea Greenberger, Attorney at Law, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Susan K. Houser, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Zoya Petrovna Milentyeva, a native of Russia and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proeeedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 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, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2002). We grant the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because Milentyeva’s evidence of illness on the day of her removal proceeding was sufficient to establish “exceptional circumstances” excusing her failure to appear before the IJ. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(c); Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for consideration of Milentyeva’s asylum application.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.