Gonzalez-Flores

Gonzalez-Flores v. Ashcroft

Good Law
36 F. App'x 611
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 12, 2002No. 00-71095; INS Nos. A76-369-148 A76-369-149 A76-369-150California263 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*612 MEMORANDUM ***

Jaime Gonzalez-Flores, the lead petitioner, and his wife Maria del Carmen Terrazas de Gonzalez and child Luis Alberto Gonzalez (collectively, the “Gonza-lezes”), all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their motion to reopen their removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b), see Castro-Espinosa v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1130 , 1131 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2001) (order), and we deny the petition.

After they failed to appear at their removal hearing, the IJ ordered the Gonzalezes removed in absentia. The Gonzalezes received constitutionally sufficient oral and written notice of the date of the removal hearing and the consequences of failing to appear, see Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997), and they failed to demonstrate the requisite “exceptional circumstances” for failing to appear at the removal hearing, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i); id. § 1229a(e)(1) (in absentia order may be reopened for “exceptional circumstances” including the “serious illness of the alien or serious…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.