Jesus Barrera Osorio v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 556 F. App'x 613 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS BARRERA OSORIO, No. 12-73027
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-875-471
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Barrera Osorio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo
questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Barrera Osorio’s motion to
reopen where Barrera Osorio failed to establish that exceptional circumstances
excused his failure to appear at his hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1) (defining
exceptional circumstances as circumstances beyond the control of the alien).
Barrera Osorio’s contention that the IJ did not consider the totality of
circumstances is not supported by the record.
The BIA did not err in summarily affirming Barrera Osorio’s appeal where
the factors he presented for his failure to appear did not present a novel factual or
legal scenario. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i)(B) (setting forth situations which are
appropriate for affirmance without opinion); cf. Chen v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1081,
1086-87 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding to the BIA for consideration of a novel and
substantial legal issue in the first instance).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-73027