Eva Guido-Mejia v. Jefferson Sessions, III ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EVA GLORIA GUIDO-MEJIA and No. 17-70799
ANGEL ALONSO ARGUETA-GUIDO,
Agency Nos. A208-145-333
Petitioners, A208-145-334
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Eva Gloria Guido-Mejia and Angel Alonso Argueta-Guido, natives and
citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
*
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).
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We
have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen for failure to establish “exceptional circumstances” under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) where petitioners’ evidence, including the dentist’s note, does
not establish that Guido-Mejia’s illness was “serious” as defined by the statute.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1); Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 892 (9th
Cir. 2002) (BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner’s
evidence, consisting of a declaration and a medical form, failed to establish that
his asthma attack constituted “exceptional circumstances”).
Petitioners failed to raise, and thus have waived, any challenge to the BIA’s
determination that they did not submit any supporting documentation for their
claims for asylum and related relief, nor discuss any changed country conditions to
warrant reopening to seek such relief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3
(9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).
Petitioners’ contentions that the BIA’s decision was insufficient and violated
their due process rights are unsupported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010).
2 17-70799
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-70799