Case Name: Jose HERNANDEZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-23
Citations: 232 F. App'x 637
Docket Number: No. 05-77279
Parties: Jose HERNANDEZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 232
Pages: 637–638

Head Matter:
Jose HERNANDEZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-77279.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 23, 2007.
Michael J. Hernandez, Esq., Ronzio & Associates, Los Angeles, 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, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Hernandez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order adopting and affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") 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, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
Hernandez-Ramirez submitted a declaration and supporting documents establishing that, on the way to the hearing, his car broke down. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in concluding that these circumstances were not exceptional within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) and 1229a(e)(l). See, e.g., Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir.1996) (traffic congestion and parking difficulties insufficient to require reopening).
Petitioner's request for oral argument is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.