Case Name: Kadhim H. AL BUMOHAMMED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-02
Citations: 381 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 08-70873
Parties: Kadhim H. AL BUMOHAMMED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 659–659

Head Matter:
Kadhim H. AL BUMOHAMMED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70873.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 2, 2010.
Kadhim H. A1 Bumohammed, Santee, CA, pro se.
Carl Henry McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director, OIL, Gary J. Newkirk, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Kadhim H. A1 Bumohammed, a native and citizen of Iraq, petitions pro se 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying A1 Bumohammed's motion to reopen where he failed to establish exceptional circumstances, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l), and failed to establish that the denial of the motion to reopen would lead to the "unconscionable result" of the removal of an individual with an obviously valid claim for relief, cf. Singh, 295 F.3d at 1040.
A1 Bumohammed's remaining contentions are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.