Case Name: WEIQI CHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-08
Citations: 447 F. App'x 766
Docket Number: No. 10-73028
Parties: WEIQI CHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 447
Pages: 766–767

Head Matter:
WEIQI CHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73028.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
Filed Aug. 8, 2011.
Norman Anthony Lewin, Esquire, Senior, Law Offices of Norman Lewin, Woodland Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Sabatino F. Leo, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Weiqi Chang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Chang's motion to reopen where Chang failed to establish that exceptional circumstances excused his failure to appear at his hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l) (defining exceptional circumstances as circumstances beyond the control of the alien); cf. Singh-Bhathal v. INS, 170 F.3d 943, 946-47 (9th Cir.1999).
Chang's contentions that the agency violated this Court's precedent as well as its own are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.