Case ID: f-appx_437/html/0586-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan Luis OROZCO-ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72522.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 9, 2011.
    
      Keli M. Reynolds, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Richard Zanfardino, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Luis Orozco-Estrada, 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Chete Juarez v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir.2004), and we grant the petition for review.

The agency abused its discretion in denying Orozco-Estrada’s motion to reopen for failure to demonstrate that “exceptional circumstances” caused his absence from his March 3, 2008, hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(1). Orozco-Estra-da diligently appeared for numerous previous hearings, filed an application for relief for which he was prima facie eligible, and diligently created a record presenting a strong likelihood that meaningful relief would be granted. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002); see also Chete Juarez, 376 F.3d at 948-49; cf. Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1206 (9th Cir.2003).

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