Case Name: Christine Thayalaseelan SELVARATNAM; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-14
Citations: 244 F. App'x 109
Docket Number: No. 05-76682
Parties: Christine Thayalaseelan SELVARATNAM; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 244
Pages: 109–110

Head Matter:
Christine Thayalaseelan SELVARATNAM; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76682.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007.
Filed June 14, 2007.
Markandu S. Vigneswaran, Law Offices of Markandu S. Vigneswaran, Hacienda Heights, CA, for Petitioners.
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, Christine Whitledge, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Christine Thayalaseelan Selvaratnam, and her husband and daughter, natives and citizens of Sri Lanka, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen because petitioners' misunderstanding about the date of their hearing did not amount to "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) and 1229a(e)(l). See Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1206 (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.