Case Name: Gohar KHACHATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-23
Citations: 229 F. App'x 502
Docket Number: No. 05-73772
Parties: Gohar KHACHATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 502–502

Head Matter:
Gohar KHACHATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73772.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 23, 2007.
James L. Rosenberg, Esq., Law Offices of James L. Rosenberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Gohar Khachatryan, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.
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, A. Jennifer Bray, U.S. Department of Justice, Dallas, TX, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gohar Khachatryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Khachatryan's motion to reopen for failure to establish "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) and 1229a(e)(l). The letter Khachatryan submitted reflects only that she had a diagnostic test on the date of her hearing and does not establish that she had a "serious" illness within the meaning of the statute. See Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 892.
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.