Case Name: Valeriya Georgieva NEDEVAALANIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-09
Citations: 437 F. App'x 585
Docket Number: No. 09-73223
Parties: Valeriya Georgieva NEDEVA-ALANIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 585–586

Head Matter:
Valeriya Georgieva NEDEVA-ALANIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73223.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 9, 2011.
Monika Sud-Devaraj, Law Offices of Monika Sud Devaraj and Marshall Whitehead, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Oil, John M. McAdams, Jr., 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: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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
Valeriya Georgieva Nedeva-Alaniz, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her motion to reopen 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, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Nedeva-Alaniz's motion to reopen on grounds that she failed to establish exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(F), 1229a(b)(5)(B); Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.