Case Name: Alejandro NUNEZ-MIROLA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-02
Citations: 637 F. App'x 485
Docket Number: No. 13-72498
Parties: Alejandro NUNEZ-MIROLA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
Alejandro NUNEZ-MIROLA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72498.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
Filed March 2, 2016.
Alejandro Nunez-Mirola, San Bernardi-no, CA, pro se.
Kristofer Ryan McDonald, Esquire, Trial, 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: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, 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
Alejandro Nunez-Mirola, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his 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 denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Nunez-Mirola's motion to reopen, where he failed to establish he did not receive notice of the time and place of the hearing at which he was ordered removed in absentia, or that his attorney's illness and failure to inform him of his hearing date constitutes exceptional circumstances sufficient to excuse his failure to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (b)(5)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). Nunez-Mirola's contention that he received notice in English does not change this conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A) ("in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of [ ] proceedings, . a written notice shall be given in person to the alien"); Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 829 (9th Cir.2004) (notice in English is "reasonably calculated to reach and to inform [petitioner]").
To the extent Nunez-Mirola now contends his prior attorney abandoned him, or failed to withdraw from or seek a continuance in his case, we lack jurisdiction over these unexhausted contentions. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) ("We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien's administrative proceedings before the BIA.").
'Nunez-Mirola's contention that the IJ violated due process by failing to provide his prior attorney with written notice of the hearing is likewise unexhausted. See id.
We deny Nunez-Mirola's request for judicial notice of the extra-record information regarding his prior counsel. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir.2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
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.