Hovhanisian

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner is a 64-year-old native and citizen of Azerbaijan who submitted an asylum application in 2000. She did not appear for an August hearing, and the Immigration Judge (IJ) issued an order of removal in absentia. In 2001, petitioner filed a motion to reopen stating that she had failed to appear due to exceptional circumstances under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l), involving fraud perpetrated by an immigration consultant. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion, in part because it found petitioner’s reliance on the supposed immigration consultant’s misrepresentations unreasonable. We find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen and therefore deny the petition. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we discuss only those necessary to our analysis.

Petitioner’s claim that she falls under the rule announced in Lopez v. INS, 184 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir.1999), for immigration consultant fraud ignores significant factual differences from that case. The Lopez court considered “Lopez’s reasonable reliance on fraudulent legal representation [by a notary public who represented himself as a lawyer].” Id. at 1100 (emphasis added). The…