Case Name: Manjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-01
Citations: 398 F. App'x 227
Docket Number: No. 08-73395
Parties: Manjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 227–228

Head Matter:
Manjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73395.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 1, 2010.
Jonathan Myles Kaufman, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial, 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: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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
Manjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002), we grant the petition for review.
The agency abused its discretion when it concluded that Kaur did not show exceptional circumstances for her absence from her hearing because the medical documentation Kaur's attorney presented at the scheduled hearing indicated that Kaur was unable to attend the hearing due to her medical condition. Cfi Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 890-92 (in which alien made no showing of the seriousness of his alleged asthma attack, did not notify the immigration court that he would be absent, and did not seek medical attention until two weeks after the date of the missed hearing).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.