Case Name: Jose Abel Arguello VALERA, et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-17
Citations: 346 F. App'x 145
Docket Number: No. 06-73210
Parties: Jose Abel Arguello VALERA, et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 346
Pages: 145–146

Head Matter:
Jose Abel Arguello VALERA, et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73210.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2009.
Filed Aug. 17, 2009.
Jose Abel Arguello Valera, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Ana Guadalupe Arguello, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Jose Gustavo Arguello Medina, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Siu P. Wong, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Abel Arguello Valera and Ana Guadalupe Arguello, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their 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 and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. Itunibarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen for failure to establish "exceptional circumstances." See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l).
It follows that the denial of petitioners' motion to reopen did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.