MARIANO FLORES CASTILLO V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 17-70886 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIANO ANTONIO FLORES CASTILLO, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70886 Agency No. A205-186-412 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Mariano Antonio Flores Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Flores Castillo’s motion to reopen for failure to establish exceptional circumstances, where he failed to attend his hearing because he was confused about the date. See 8 C.F.R. §1003.23(b)(4)(ii); 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) (no exceptional circumstances where petitioner forgot the scheduled time of her hearing); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-70886

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.