Manarez
Manarez v. Ashcroft
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Peter Nillasca Manarez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and' we deny the petition.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir.1996); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. See Sharma, 89 F.3d at 547 . BIA’s determinations of purely legal questions are reviewed de novo. Rodriguez-Lariz, 282 F.3d at 1222 .
The BIA rejected Manarez’s argument that his case should be reopened because his failure to appear was caused by exceptional circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that “ ‘exceptional circumstances’ refers to exceptional circumstances (such as serious illness of the alien or serious illness or death of the spouse, child, or parent of the alien, but not less compelling circumstances) beyond the control of the alien.” 8 U.S.C. 1229a(e)(1).