Case Name: Jose Antonio Perez HIGUERA; Edelmira Orozco Ochoa, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-14
Citations: 428 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 09-71209
Parties: Jose Antonio Perez HIGUERA; Edelmira Orozco Ochoa, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 428
Pages: 687–688

Head Matter:
Jose Antonio Perez HIGUERA; Edelmira Orozco Ochoa, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71209.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 14, 2011.
Ramin Ghashghaei, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Rachel Louise Browning, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, 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
Jose Antonio Perez Higuera and Edelmira Orozco Ochoa, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their motion to reopen, after an in absentia determination of removal. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen on the grounds that their mistaken understanding that their hearing was on a different date did not constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l), and denial of the motion did not lead to an unconscionable result. See Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.