T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T
YO NG S HA N WU- C HE NG , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 70920 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 596- 238
ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 13, 2011 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: D . W . N E L S O N , B Y B E E , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P e t i t i one rY ongs ha n W u- C he ng ( “ W u- C he ng” ) pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B o ar do f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’ (“B IA ”) o rd eraf firm in g an Im m ig ra ti o n Ju d g e’s ( “ I J ” ) de ni a l of

hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. F ol l ow i ng W u- C he ng’ s f a i l ur e t o appe a ron t i m e f orhi s m e r i t s he a r i ng, the I Jor de r e d hi m de port e d in a b s e n tia . W u- C he ng 

# FI LED APR26 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST h e g o v e rn m e n t c o n te n d s th a t w e d o n o t h a v e ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth is c la im 1 b e c au s e W u - C h e n g f

a ile dto r a is e it b e f

o r e th e B I A
. See Fi

gu er oa v. Mukasey , 543 F . 3d 48 7, 49 2 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). W e di sa gree . W u-C heng st at ed i n hi s br i e f

be f or e the B I A tha the “ di d notf a i l t o appe a re nt i r e l y ” a nd c i t e d t o a c a s e i n w hi c h the S e ve nth C i r c ui tbr i e f l ydi s c us s e d the di f

f e r e nc e be tw e e n a “ fa i l ure t o app ear a tal l and a fai l ure t o app ear a texac t l y the appo i nt ed ho ur. ” Na z a r o v a v . I

NS , 171 F
. 3d 478, 485 ( 7th C i r . 1999)
. W e f i nd tha tthe e xhaus t i on r e q u ir e m e n t is m e t. Se e Fi gue r oa , 5 4 3 F .3 da t 4 9 2 ; Kag an ovi ch v. G on zales , 470 F .3 d8 9 4 , 8 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ; Zh a n gv . A s h c r o ft , 38 8 F
. 3d 71 3, 72 1 (9th C i r. 2004) ( pe rc ur i a m )
. B yc ontr a s t , w e f i nd tha tW u- C he ng f

a i l e d t o e xhaus thi s due p r o c e s s a n di n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l a r g u m e n t s b e f

o r e th e B I A, a n dwe th e r e f o r e la c kju r is d ic tio n o v e rth o s e c la im s . 2 a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t h e d idn o t “f a il to ap p e a r ” f

o rh is h e a r in g . H e a v e r s th a t h is 1 i nt erpret erm i si nform ed hi m thathi s heari ng w as sc hedu l ed at1: 00 p. m . on M ar ch 1 , 2 0 0 6 , in s te a do f

9 :0 0 a .m . th a t m o rn in g . W u - C h e n g r e c o u n ts , th r o u g h h is i n t erp ret er, th e d ay’ s ev en t s: W hen I arri ved t o the courtatabou t11 : 00 a. m . , I f ou nd no bo dy there , a nd w a i t e d a tthe w a i t i ng a r e a . A t1: 00 p. m . , I e nt e r e d the c ourt [ ] r oom . B utthe J udge di d nott a l k t o m e unt i l e ve ry one l e f t . S o, I s h o w e dth e j u d g e myA n u mb e r . Th e n , al a d ya tth e c o u rtt o l dme ( tr a n s l a t e db ymyf

r i e n dth r o u g h myc e l l p h o n e ) th a tmyh e a r i n g t i me w a s a t 9 :0 0 a .m ., a n dI w a s o r d e r e dr e m o v e db yth e ju d g e . U n fo rtu n at el y, th e j u d g e d i dn o tp u to n th e reco rd th atI cam e b ecau se he al re ady c l osed the ca se . T h e r e f o r e , a c c o r d in g to W u - C h e n g , h e d idap p e a rf o rh is h e a r in g , a lb e it la te . H is de c l a r a t i on i s unc ont e s t e d. I n P er ezv. Mukasey , thi s C ourthe l d tha t“ ape t i t i one rw ho a rr i ve s l a t e f or h is im m ig r a tio n h e a r in g , b u t w h ile th e I Jis s till in th e c o u rtr o o m , h a s n o t f a ile d to3

ap p e a rf o rth a t h e a r in g .” 5 1 6 F .3 d7 7 0 , 7 7 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . “A c c o r d in g ly , h e is
n o t r e q u ir e dto d e m o n s tr a te e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s in o r d e rto r e o p e n h is proceedi ng s. ” I

d. N e i the rthe I Jnorthe B I A ha d the be ne f i tof ourr e a s oni ng i n P er ezw h e n it
c ons i de r e d W u- C he ng’ s c l a i m s . A ddi t i ona l l y , ne i the rc ourtpa s s e d on the que s t i on of w hether W u-C heng had actual l y f ai l ed t o app ear f

or hi s heari ng . Inst ea d, they
as sum ed thathe had fai l ed t o app ear and w enton t o con si der w hether he had
e s tab lis h e d“e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” to e x c u s e h is n o n - ap p e a r a n c e . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a ( b ) ( 5 ) ( C ) ( i) ; i d. § 1 2 2 9 a(e)(1 ). T h erefo re, n o factu al fi n d i n g s ex i st
a s to w h e th e rW u - C h e n g ap p e a r e din th e c o u rtr o o m th e d a yo f h is h e a r in g . W e r em and t o the B IA t o m ake f i nd i ng s a s t o w hether W u-C heng att ended i m m i grat i on courton the day of hi s heari ng . T he B IA shou l d then con si der
w he the rW u- C he ng f

a i l e d t o appe a ri n l i ghtof ourde c i s i on i n P er ez . W e d i sm i ss W u- C he ng’ s due pr oc e s s a nd i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m s f

orl a c k of j u ri sd i ct i o n . E ach p arty sh al l b ear i t s o w n co st s. Pe t i t i o n f

o r r e v i e w G R A N TED i n pa r t a nd D I SM I SSED i n pa r t ; t he
c a s e i s R EM A N D ED f o r f ur t he r pr o c e e di ng s c o ns i s t e nt w i t h t hi s di s po s i t i o n.