Case Name: Manuel De Jesus Asij GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-14
Citations: 478 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 10-71736
Parties: Manuel De Jesus Asij GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 478
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
Manuel De Jesus Asij GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71736.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 14, 2012.
Manuel De Jesus Asij Garcia, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John J.W. Inkeles, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. 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
Manuel de Jesus Asij Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") 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 and review de novo claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency acted within its discretion in denying Asij Garcia's motion to reopen because he did not establish that his failure to appear inside the courtroom was on account of exceptional circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). It follows that his due process claim fads. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.