N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ALEJANDR O NUNEZ-M IR O LA, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-72498 Age n c y No. A078-025-259 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. Ale ja ndro Nune z -M irola , a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his motion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings c onduc te d in a bse ntia . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED MAR 02 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1252. W e re vie wfor a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re ope n, a

nd re vie w de novo c onstitutiona l c la im s a nd que stions of la

w. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing Nune z -M irola ’ s m otion to re ope n , whe re he fa ile d to e sta blish hedid not re c e ive notic e of the tim e and pla c e of the he aring a

t whic h he wa s orde re d re m ove d in a b se ntia , or tha

t his a ttorne y ’ s illne ss a nd fa ilure to inform

him of his he aring da

te c onstitute s e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s suffic ie nt to e xc use his fa ilure to a ppe ar. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (b)(5)(C )(i); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). Nune z -M i rola ’ s c o nte ntion tha t he re c e ive d notic e in English doe s not c ha nge this c o nc lusion. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229(a )(2)(A) (“ in the c a se of any c ha nge or postpone m e nt in thetim e and pla c e of [] proc e e dings, . . . a

writte n notic e sha ll be give n in pe rson to thea lie n” ); K han v . Ashc roft , 374 F.3d 825, 829 (9th C ir. 2004) (notic e in English is “ re a sona bly c a lc ulat e d to re a c h a

nd to inform

[pe titione r] ” ). To the e xte nt Nune z -M irola now c o nte nds his prior a ttorne y a ba ndone d him , or fa i le d to withdra

w from or se e k a c ontinua nc e in his c a se , we la c k jurisdic tion ove r the se une xha

uste d c onte ntions. Se eTijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080

1 3 - 7 2 4 9 8 2(9th C ir. 2010) (“ W e la c k jurisdic t ion to re vie w le ga l c la i m s not pre se nte d in a n a lie n’ s a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings be fore the B IA.” ). Nune z -M i rola ’ s c o nte ntion tha t the IJ viola

te d due proc e ss by

fa iling to provide his prior a

ttorne y with written notic e of the he aring is likew ise une xha uste d. Se eid. W e de ny Nune z -M irola ’ s re que st for judic ia l notic e of the e xtra -re c ord inform at ion re ga

rding his prior c ounse l. Se eDe nt v . Holde r , 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th C ir. 2010) (sta

t ing sta nda rd for re vie w of out-of-re c ord e vide nc e ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 2 4 9 8 3