Case Name: HUIRONG CHENG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-07
Citations: 647 F. App'x 777
Docket Number: No. 11-72890
Parties: HUIRONG CHENG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, BEA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 647
Pages: 777–778

Head Matter:
HUIRONG CHENG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72890.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 2016.
Filed April 7, 2016.
Maria Christina Flores, Law Office of Maria Flores, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lindsay M. Murphy, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, BEA, and M. SMITH, 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
Huirong Cheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's 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 the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Cheng's motion to reopen on the ground that his mistake concerning the time of his hearing did not constitute exceptional circumstances beyond his control that would excuse his failure to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C), (e)(1); Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir.2003); cf. Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.2002). As in Valencias-Fragoso, Cheng failed to appear because he misrecollected the time of his hearing. 321 F.3d at 1205-06. Unlike in Singh, Cheng was not, at the time of his hearing, the beneficiary of an approved visa petition. Id.; Singh, 295 F.3d at 1040. Thus, the disposition of this case is controlled by Valenciar-Fragoso.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.