Case Name: Jose Bentura Maximiliano SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-13
Citations: 162 F. App'x 781
Docket Number: No. 04-75224
Parties: Jose Bentura Maximiliano SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 162
Pages: 781–781

Head Matter:
Jose Bentura Maximiliano SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75224.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 9, 2006.
Decided Jan. 13, 2006.
Jose Bentura Maximiliano Sandoval, Denver, CO, pro se.
CAC-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, James E. Grimes, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Bentura Maximiliano Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his motion to reopen his deportation proceeding after Sandoval was ordered deported in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion when she denied Sandoval's motion to reopen because his vague statement that he failed to appear at his hearing due to a "medical problem" did not establish "exceptional circumstances." See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(A); Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 891-92 (9th Cir.2002).
Sandoval's contention that the BIA erred in streamlining its decision lacks merits because the BIA issued an opinion.
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.