Court Opinion

ID: 808582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-09-14 20:28:30+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:31.029171
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                         SEP 14 2012

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

MANUEL DE JESUS ASIJ GARCIA,                      No. 10-71736

               Petitioner,                        Agency No. A099-066-053

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted September 10, 2012 **

Before:        WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       Manuel de Jesus Asij Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal

proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de

novo claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,

791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

      The agency acted within its discretion in denying Asij Garcia’s motion to

reopen because he did not establish that his failure to appear inside the courtroom

was on account of exceptional circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). It

follows that his due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th

Cir. 2000).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                   10-71736