Case Name: Samvel GRIGORYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-23
Citations: 294 F. App'x 309
Docket Number: No. 06-72933
Parties: Samvel GRIGORYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
Samvel GRIGORYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72933.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008 .
Filed Sept. 23, 2008.
Bob S. Platt, Esq., Law Office of Bob Platt, Granada Hills, 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, Andrew Richards, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Torts Branch, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Samvel Grigoryan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order 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, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Grigoryan's motion to reopen for failure to establish "exceptional circumstances" under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). Grigoryan's doctor's note does not establish that Grigoryan's illness was "serious" as defined by the statute. See id. § 1229a(e)(1); Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 892 (BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner's evidence, consisting of a declaration and a medical form, failed to establish that his asthma attack constituted "exceptional circumstances").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.