Mohamed Ferchichi v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMED ELEBEN FERCHICHI, No. 16-73968
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-639-503
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Mohamed Eleben Ferchichi, a native and citizen of Tunisia, 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,
Arredondo v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 801, 805 (9th Cir. 2016), and we deny the petition
for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ferchichi’s motion to
reopen proceedings conducted in absentia where Ferchichi conceded that he
received notice of the proceedings, and where he failed to demonstrate
extraordinary circumstances to excuse his absence from the proceeding. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C); Arredondo, 824 F.3d at 805-06 (setting forth the
standards governing a motion to reopen and explaining exceptional circumstances);
see also Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2003)
(petitioner’s misunderstanding of the time of the removal hearing did not constitute
an exceptional circumstance in the context of an in absentia removal order).
Because this determination is dispositive, we need not reach Ferchichi’s
remaining contentions. 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 16-73968