Case Name: Simarjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-24
Citations: 474 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 09-73174
Parties: Simarjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 701–702

Head Matter:
Simarjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73174.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 24, 2012.
Simarjit Kaur, South Richmond Hill, NY, pro se.
Steven Frank Day, Esquire, OIL, 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: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Simarjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency's denial of a motion to reopen, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890-91 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur's motion to reopen for failure to establish exceptional circumstances beyond her control that would excuse her failure to appear for her removal hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(1); Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 892.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Kaur's remaining contentions regarding her re-movability, her motion to change venue, or the sufficiency of the government's evidence of fraud, as these contentions were not exhausted before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.