Case Name: YING LI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-24
Citations: 294 F. App'x 341
Docket Number: No. 04-75101
Parties: YING LI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 341–343

Head Matter:
YING LI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75101.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 24, 2008.
Thomas J. Mayer, Esquire, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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
Ying Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 891-92 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Li's motion to reopen because the accompanying declaration and doctor's note were insufficient to establish "exceptional circumstances" under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1). Even if we were to consider the extra-record documents submitted by Li, as the IJ noted, the doctor's note lacks detail regarding Li's diagnosis and does not indicate the severity of her condition or the administered treatment. See Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 892 (agency properly denied motion to reopen supported only by alien's declaration that he suffered an asthma attack and hospital form that did not indicate severity of illness).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.