Case Name: Ricardo Topete CURIEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-19
Citations: 362 F. App'x 699
Docket Number: No. 06-71639
Parties: Ricardo Topete CURIEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 699–700

Head Matter:
Ricardo Topete CURIEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71639.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
Martin Avila Robles, Immigration Practice Group A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mark R. Freeman, 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: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).'

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ricardo Topete Curiel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absen-tia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Topete Curiel's motion to reopen because he did not meet his burden to establish that his panic attack constituted "exceptional circumstances" under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l). See id. at 892 (agency properly denied motion to reopen supported only by alien's declaration that he suffered an asthma attack and hospital form that did not indicate severity of illness).
Petitioner's remaining contentions are not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.