Case Name: Kristina VAIDOTAITE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-08
Citations: 292 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: No. 05-71729
Parties: Kristina VAIDOTAITE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 292
Pages: 591–591

Head Matter:
Kristina VAIDOTAITE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71729.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
Filed Sept. 8, 2008.
Cheri Attix, Esq., Law Office of Cheri Attix, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard L. Pomeroy, Esq., USAK-Office of the U.S. Attorney Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse, Anchorage, AK, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, 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
Kristina Vaidotaite, a native and citizen of Lithuania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen, Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vaidotaite's motion to reopen because she was aware that the address on her asylum application did not belong to her. See Singh-Bhathal v. INS, 170 F.3d 943, 946-47 (9th Cir.1999) (reliance on advice of non-attorney immigration consultant insufficient to demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" necessary to reopen in absentia proceedings).
Vaidotaite's contention that the agency failed to consider the positive equities in her case is unavailing.
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.