OFELIA ALVARADO-MELENDEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73035 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OFELIA ELIZABETH ALVARADOMELENDEZ and GENESIS ELIZABETH LOPEZ-ALVARADO, No. 15-73035 Agency Nos. A206-836-858 A206-836-859 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Ofelia Elizabeth Alvarado-Melendez and Genesis Elizabeth LopezAlvarado, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration * 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). judge’s order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of 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 petitioners’ motion to reopen for failure to establish exceptional circumstances, where they failed to attend their hearing because of a misunderstanding with their attorney. See 8 C.F.R. §1003.23(b)(4)(ii); 8 U.S.C. §1229a(e)(1); Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2003) (no exceptional circumstances where petitioner was late to her hearing due to confusion about the time). To the extent petitioners contend that their former counsel was ineffective, we lack jurisdiction to review this unexhausted claim. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1070, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”). We also lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination not to reopen sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 824-825 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part 2 15-73035

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.