22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T496,MEMORANDUM Jose Antonio Rodriguez-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation 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. Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Martinez’s motion to reopen because Rodriguez-Martinez’s mistaken belief that his hearing was one week later does not constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l) and his only possibility of relief is a discretionary grant of cancellation of removal. See Valencias-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1206 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (no showing of exceptional circumstance and only possibility of relief was discretionary grant of voluntary departure). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4c3,

MEMORANDUM

Jose Antonio Rodriguez-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation 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. Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Martinez’s motion to reopen because Rodriguez-Martinez’s mistaken belief that his hearing was one week later does not constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l) and his only possibility of relief is a discretionary grant of cancellation of removal. See Valencias-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1206 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (no showing of exceptional circumstance and only possibility of relief was discretionary grant of voluntary departure).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.