Ashot Yeremyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASHOT YEREMYAN, No. 09-70120
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-854-135
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ashot Yeremyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen proceedings to
rescind an in absentia removal order, Chete Juarez v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 944, 947
(9th Cir. 2004), and we deny in part, and dismiss in part, the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Yeremyan’s motion to
reopen where Yeremyan failed to demonstrate the existence of “exceptional
circumstances . . . beyond the control of the alien” that would warrant reopening
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1); see also Sharma
v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547-48 (9th Cir. 1996) (traffic congestion and difficulty
parking insufficient to require reopening proceedings).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Yeremyan’s contention that his case is
analogous to that of the alien in Jerezano v. INS, 169 F.3d 613, 615 (9th Cir. 1999)
because Yeremyan failed to exhaust this contention at the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-70120