FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE LUIS GARCIA HUINAC, No. 14-73092
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-681-905
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Luis Garcia Huinac, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 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. § 1252.
*
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).
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de
novo questions of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010).
We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Garcia Huinac’s motion
to reopen, where Garcia Huinac received proper notice of the hearing, and failed to
establish that exceptional circumstances excused his failure to appear at his
hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) (allowing written notice to alien’s counsel
of record); id. at (e)(1) (defining exceptional circumstances as circumstances
beyond the control of the alien); Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.
2004) (exceptional circumstances not demonstrated where alien failed to comply
with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637, 639 (BIA
1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance is not obvious on the face of the
record).
Garcia Huinac’s contentions that the BIA failed to provide a reasoned
explanation for its decision and did not sufficiently address issues he raised on
appeal are not supported by the record. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (“[t]he
[BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention” (internal quotes
omitted)). Accordingly, Garcia Huinac’s due process claims must fail. See Lata v.
2 14-73092
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail
on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73092