Imanurofiq v. Eric H. Holder Jr. ( 2009 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HIMAWAN IMANUROFIQ, No. 07-72701
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-070-675
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Himawan Imanurofiq, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
/Research
that were conducted in absentia. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Celis-
Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2002), we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Imanurofiq’s motion to
reopen because the evidence he submitted was insufficient to establish
“exceptional circumstances.” See id. at 891-92. Imanurofiq’s contention that he
should not have been required to produce additional medical documentation is
unavailing. See id. at 892. Imanurofiq’s contention that reopening was not barred
where the government did not affirmatively oppose the motion is unpersuasive.
Accordingly, Imanurofiq’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for due process violation).
We lack jurisdiction to review Imanurofiq’s claim that he was unaware of
the correct hearing time because he failed to raise the issue before the agency. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that this court
lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency). We deny
Imanurofiq’s request to remand to the agency for consideration of the new claim.
We do not consider the declarations Imanurofiq has submitted for the first
/Research 2 07-72701
time on petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Respondent’s motion to strike is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
/Research 3 07-72701