Case Name: Adolfo Lepez CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-23
Citations: 229 F. App'x 483
Docket Number: No. 05-70325
Parties: Adolfo Lepez CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 483–484

Head Matter:
Adolfo Lepez CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70325.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 23, 2007.
Robert G. Berke, Esq., Berke Law Offices, Los Angeles, 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, Joshua E. Braunstein, Esq., Greg D. Mack, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Kimberly Moore, U.S. Attorney’s Office Assistant U.S. Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R-App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Adolfo Lepez Cabrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision 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, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Lepez Cabrera's motion to reopen for failure to establish "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) and 1229a(e)(l). Lepez Cabrera's declaration stating that he had a stomach infection and a medical form reflecting a diagnosis of abdominal pain and diarrhea do not establish that his illness was "serious" within the meaning of the statute. See Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 892 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.