Case Name: Adedotun EDUN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-24
Citations: 469 F. App'x 518
Docket Number: No. 08-72880
Parties: Adedotun EDUN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 469
Pages: 518–518

Head Matter:
Adedotun EDUN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72880.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 24, 2012.
Edward Pilot, Edward W. Pilot, APC, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Theodore Charles Hirt, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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
Adedotun Edun, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Edun's motion to reopen for failure to show "reasonable cause" for his absence from his scheduled hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1988).
The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen where Edun failed to show prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3).
Edun's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.