Case Name: Mariana MONTES BRAVO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-22
Citations: 137 F. App'x 17
Docket Number: No. 04-71246
Parties: Mariana MONTES BRAVO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 137
Pages: 17–18

Head Matter:
Mariana MONTES BRAVO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71246.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2005.
Decided June 22, 2005.
Mariana Montes Bravo, Monrovia, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mariana Montes Bravo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen proceedings in which she was ordered removed in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890-91 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Bravo's motion to reopen because the evidence does not compel the finding that Bravo suffered a serious illness sufficient to establish an exceptional circumstance for her failure to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a; Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 891-92 (general evidence of an asthma attack insufficient to compel a finding of "exceptional circumstances" under section 1229a).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.