Hailian Xu v. William Barr ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2019
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    HAILIAN XU,                                     No.    16-73792
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A099-440-171
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted February 19, 2019**
    Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Hailian Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
    of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
    order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia.
    We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
    denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo questions of law. Mohammed
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    v. Gonzales, 
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for
    review.
    The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Xu’s motion to reopen,
    where he failed to present sufficient evidence to show that he failed to appear at his
    hearing due to exceptional circumstances beyond his control. See 8 U.S.C.
    § 1229a(e)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 
    298 F.3d 888
    , 892 (9th Cir. 2002).
    We reject Xu’s contention that the agency failed to consider relevant
    evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 
    597 F.3d 983
    , 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding
    the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision);
    Fernandez v. Gonzales, 
    439 F.3d 592
    , 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not
    overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record).
    In light of our disposition, we do not reach Xu’s remaining contentions
    regarding equitable tolling or due diligence. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 532
    , 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues
    unnecessary to the results they reach).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    16-73792