Case Name: Martin Angeles BALTAZAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-21
Citations: 310 F. App'x 90
Docket Number: No. 06-74171
Parties: Martin Angeles BALTAZAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 310
Pages: 90–91

Head Matter:
Martin Angeles BALTAZAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74171.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 21, 2009.
Martin Angeles Baltazar, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Esquire, OIL, Russell J.E. Verby, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Martin Angeles Baltazar, 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 order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Baltazar's motion to reopen because the doctor's note he provided was insufficient to establish "exceptional circumstances." See id. at 892.
Baltazar's contention that the agency violated due process by disregarding evidence is not supported by the record. Contrary to Baltazar's contention, the BIA provided a reasoned explanation for its decision. See Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005).
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.