Case Name: Hilario Tlaseca SILVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-28
Citations: 424 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 09-70906
Parties: Hilario Tlaseca SILVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 424
Pages: 679–679

Head Matter:
Hilario Tlaseca SILVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70906.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 28, 2011.
Hilario Tlaseca Silva, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
OIL, Jesse Lloyd Busen, Emily Anne Radford, 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: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, 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
Hilario Tlaseca Silva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's 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 the denial of a motion to reopen. Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Tlaseca Silva's motion to reopen because the evidence he submitted was insufficient to establish "exceptional circumstances." See id. at 891-92.
Tlaseca Silva has waived any challenge to the BIA's conclusion that Tlaseca Silva failed to document a claim against the notary who allegedly provided him with faulty advice. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.