ALEJANDRA REYES-ARGUELLES V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-72883 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEJANDRO REYES-ARGUELLES, Petitioner, No. 12-72883 Agency No. A091-720-711 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Alejandro Reyes-Arguelles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals 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 review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Reyes-Arguelles motion to reopen where notice was proper, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), and where Reyes-Arguelles 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); Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (finding no exceptional circumstances where petitioner misunderstood the time of her hearing). It follows that the IJ did not violate Reyes-Arguelles due process rights by denying the motion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-72883
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
