HUA TANG V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-72231 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 30 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUA TANG, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-72231 Agency No. A087-841-021 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Hua Tang, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of * 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). discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Tang’s motion to reopen, where Tang did not 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); Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 892 (9th Cir. 2002) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether exceptional circumstances were present). We lack jurisdiction to consider Tang’s unexhausted contentions regarding fairness and judicial economy. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency). We do not consider the extra-record evidence submitted for the first time with Tang’s opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial review is limited to the administrative record); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-72231
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.
