Case Name: JUN WANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-13
Citations: 237 F. App'x 216
Docket Number: No. 05-75464
Parties: JUN WANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 237
Pages: 216–217

Head Matter:
JUN WANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75464.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007.
Filed June 13, 2007.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jun Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily 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, 890-91 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Wang's motion to reopen for failure to establish "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) and 1229a(e)(l). Wang's medical evidence reflecting a diagnosis of abdominal pain and diarrhea does not establish that his illness was "serious" within the meaning of the statute. See 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 amounted to "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.