Case Name: LIANHUA DONG, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-26
Citations: 271 F. App'x 668
Docket Number: No. 05-76200
Parties: LIANHUA DONG, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 668–669

Head Matter:
LIANHUA DONG, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76200.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 26, 2008.
Dehai Zhang, Esq., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michelle E. Gorden Latour, Esq., Shahira M. Tadross, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Of fice of Immigration Lit., Matthew R. Lewis, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lianhua Dong, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to reopen because the evidence Dong submitted was insufficient to establish "exceptional circumstances." 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l); see, e.g., Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 891.
We lack jurisdiction to review Dong's remaining contentions because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.